Common Sense For New Hampshire

10 Comments

1. Taxpayer wrote:

   Tom you are wrong and misleading the public. FEMA obligated approximately 2.9 million to Belmar to replace all five buildings that were lost. They agreed (we had to ask for approval)to allow us to combine all the reimbursements toward one building. That is it. If we encounter a problem not anticipated they might consider subsidizing only that type of additional cost. It must be for something structural that relates to meeting hurricane or code standards. Keep in mind after Sandy FEMA’s suggestion to all municipalities is to NOT rebuild on the beach. They encourage moving any replacement structures out of the V-1 zone. FEMA will not write a blank check to pay for random upgrades, like in the gourmet kitchen (there’s one in the Taylor plans) if the commercial hood costs more to install or if we decide to make the building bigger with luxury upgrades which are also in the Taylor plans. Please get your facts straight.

   Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 9:59 am | Permalink
2. Cathi wrote:

   “These projects are in environmental review at the moment and are anticipated to be obligated before the end of August”.- FEMA representative.

   What does that mean and will it effect the projected FEMA reimbursements?

   Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:30 am | Permalink
3. Teddy Ehmann wrote:

   Tom Brennan, Convinced you are full of it. I sent you a copy of the FEMA project worksheet on Taylor $1,943,599.00. Now who doesn’t have their facts right? Sorry if I ask a music teacher/ elected official to use the left side of his brain. I am a visual artist but I can add and subtract.

   Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2:30 pm | Permalink
4. Another Taxpayer wrote:

   #1. Thank you, but we are speaking into a void. So lets forget these knuckle heads and speak to those in town who didn’t get gift cards and all the favors that now cloud their judgement.
   When we show them, they get it!

   Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
5. Guest wrote:

   According to the building plans for the 10th and 5th Ave building found at belmar.com, click Rebuild Pavilions, then in the search bar, enter “pavilions” we are already prohibited from replacing both building as designed. We must follow state law and under CAFRA Waterfront Development Zane Exemption • Repair, replacement, renovation or reconstruction in the same location and size (length, width and height) of the preexisting structure of any dock, floating dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead or building that appears on the applicable Tidelands Map from that appears on the applicable Tidelands Map from 1977/1978 or Coastal Wetlands Map from 1971/1972 or that received a Waterfront 1971/1972, or that received a Waterfront Development Permit subsequent to the date of the maps.

   Both buildings due to size
   and height are not lawful.

   Look at belmar.com quickly the plans have been changing since first posted.

   Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
6. Guest wrote:

   Moonachie person in charge states, yes initially in the “days” following Sandy there was a number going back and forth of about $100,000 to replace their brick municipal building built on a slab. BUT since it housed their police department and considered an essential structure, is in a flood zone the structure MUST be raised when rebuilt. Many applications were filed, new codes met and they used a professional consulting company which negotiated with FEMA all this time. They have not yet been obligated! They think it might be 4 million. We have all our FEMA obligations. Nothing changes for us at this point. Way out of line statement Tom.

   Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
7. Anonymous wrote:

   There is no guarantee from FEMA. It will be an after the fact determination as to any reimbursement. That means after the construction, after you’ve spent the bonding money. What will the story be then when it’s revealed that oops, mistake or typo,etc happened. FEMA guidelines are very specific.

   By the way CAFRA rules. No deviations allowed.

   Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
8. Anonymous wrote:

   Every post gets me more confused than the prior trying to explain this regarding the pavillion. As I see it,nothing should have been proposed to be built until it is known where the funds are coming from. Doesn’t matter whether it’s 2, 4, or 10m. Ordinance shows it as municipal liability (taxpayers). No grants, etc. Lawsuits pending regarding this? Yes. Unknown amounts from grants, etc? Yes. The Borough Administrator is/should be responsible to put those offset guaranteed numbers together in printed black and white. No bond ordinance EVER should be adopted that did not reflect actual costs that would be offset by grants, other funds, and showing responsibility of Belmar taxpayers. Governing Body should not have not acted on bond ordinance in the first place. Where are the Borough’s legal counsel with all of this? Bond Counsel? Jersey corn and tomatoes just don’t taste as good with all of this as they should after reading these posts. Governing Body, if you are reading these posts, you really need to rethink the things you do. Is Bond Counsel willing to represent at a Belmar meeting that as it had been written the bond ordinance does not lay any responsibility to Belmar taxpayers? Think not. It is said that honesty is the best policy. I agree. Please. just facts

   Friday, August 14, 2015 at 1:38 am | Permalink
9. Anonymous wrote:

   Brian: Are you on record essentially saying that the main reason for the 5th Avenue Pavilion is to use it during the 7 month period of time when people don’t use the beach? Is it also your position that Belmar get a piece of the Federal pie while the gettings good?

   Friday, August 14, 2015 at 7:29 am | Permalink
10. Anonymous wrote:

    What was the engineering firm that Lavalette used? Competitive bids? Proforma projections with actual prints, specs and drawings available to the public for scrutiny?

    Friday, August 14, 2015 at 7:47 am | Permalink

Post a Comment