Establishes "Clean Oceanfronts, Amusements, Safety, and Tourism Act" and appropriates $2.5 million.
A4902 establishes the “Clean Oceanfronts, Amusements, Safety, and Tourism Act,” or “COAST Act,” to prepare New Jersey’s coastal communities for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The bill creates a special, non-lapsing COAST Fund in the Department of the Treasury and appropriates $2.5 million to support a public awareness campaign focused on beach safety, environmental protection, tourism promotion, and hospitality in eligible coastal municipalities in Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, and Ocean counties.
The campaign would be administered by the Department of Environmental Protection, in consultation with the Division of Travel and Tourism and the Department of Health. It would include bilingual English-Spanish signage, lifeguard support, anti-littering messaging, reminders about smoking and cannabis restrictions on beaches and boardwalks, visitor welcome signage, and digital and print outreach tied to World Cup events. The bill also calls for partnerships with private entities, nonprofits, and tourism grants, and requires annual reports to the Governor and Legislature measuring outcomes such as visitor surveys, litter reduction, incident reports, and tourism revenue.
The bill’s impact on state law is to create a new dedicated funding mechanism and a new state-run coastal outreach program, while reinforcing existing laws related to smoking, cannabis use, littering, and beach safety. It does not broadly change those underlying statutes, but it uses state resources to publicize and support compliance with them in targeted shore communities. The act would take effect immediately and expire two years after the World Cup, with any unspent funds reverting to the General Fund at expiration.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of public safety, environmental stewardship, and economic development. The measure is framed as a proactive, family-friendly effort to protect the Jersey Shore, improve the visitor experience, and capture tourism-related benefits from a major international event. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or formal legislative debate in the supplied materials.
Notable points of potential contention are the use of $2.5 million in state funds for a campaign tied to a single sporting event, the focus on specific coastal counties, and the use of bilingual signage and targeted outreach as policy tools. Some observers may question whether the program is a necessary state expenditure, whether the benefits will be concentrated in tourism-heavy areas, or whether the campaign meaningfully improves compliance and safety beyond existing enforcement efforts.
The bill would add a new special fund and a temporary state program within the Department of Environmental Protection’s sphere of coordination, with Treasury holding the dedicated COAST Fund. It would direct state money toward signage, lifeguard support, tourism promotion, public health messaging, and related outreach in eligible shore municipalities, while requiring annual reporting and allowing supplemental private and nonprofit contributions. The act would also reinforce compliance with existing smoke-free, cannabis, and anti-littering rules by funding public awareness rather than creating new penalties or substantive regulatory prohibitions.
The bill is presented in a positive, promotional tone and is designed around widely supported themes: public safety, clean beaches, tourism, hospitality, and economic opportunity tied to the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The framing suggests an effort to appeal across political lines by emphasizing jobs, family-friendly recreation, and environmental protection. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s own supportive rationale.
The main areas where disagreement could arise are fiscal and policy-related: whether a $2.5 million appropriation is justified, whether the state should fund a World Cup-specific coastal campaign, and whether the program’s benefits will be broad enough to warrant a dedicated fund. There may also be debate over the bilingual signage requirement, the emphasis on tourism promotion versus direct enforcement, and the concentration of resources in Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, and Ocean counties. No specific opponents or supporters are identified in the provided record.