.
Feedback

Ocean City to Join Fight Against Bill to Repeal Beach Fees

Two state senators have introduced legislation to require towns to provide free beach access if they accept state or federal money for beach replenishment.

The top Democrat in the state Legislature, Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney, and a Republican senator from Warren County, Michael J. Doherty, have drafted legislation that would require beach towns that accept state or federal money for beach replenishment to provide free beach access to the public.

In Ocean City, which to help offset the cost of cleaning beaches and providing lifeguards, the potential legislation is frightening.

"I have a grave concern about the bipartisan support for repealing beach tag fees," Councilman Keith Hartzell said at council workshop on Thursday (Dec. 6).

Hartzell suggested taking a pro-active approach to fighting the proposed measure. He accused the state legislators of taking advantage of the devastating Superstorm Sandy for political gain.

"The very people most affected by Sandy are going to pick up the bill," Hartzell said. "It's going to get paid on our citizens' and taxpayers' backs. To think we're going to pick up $4 million is ludicrous."

Mayor Jay Gillian said that Sea Isle City Mayor Len Desiderio is lining up mayors from shore towns for a meeting at 10:30 a.m. Monday (Dec. 10) in Sea Isle to rally the opposition.

"They're playing with our livelihood," Gillian said.

Ocean City spent $3,963,000 in 2010 to provide lifeguards, beach tag inspectors, insurance, beach replenishment, dune construction and daily maintenance. But it brought in only $3,428,000 in beach tag revenue.

That $500,000 gap lead to a $5 increase in the cost of seasonal beach tags in 2011.

"Our beach fees relate very closely to our costs of operating the beach," Business Administrator Mike Dattilo said.

The proposed legislation suggests municipalities that accept aid for rebuilding beaches should not be allowed to collect fees for beach badges. It also would require municipalities to provide free public restroom facilities between Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends.

Sweeney said New Jerseyans "shouldn’t be taxed a second time just to walk on the sand.”

“It is likely that state and federal taxpayers will provide hundreds of millions of dollars to repair and replenish New Jersey beaches that were washed away during Hurricane Sandy,” Doherty said. “Considering the massive public resources that will be directed at rebuilding many New Jersey beaches, it only seems fair to ensure that everyone have the opportunity to enjoy free access to the beaches they will support and help rebuild with their tax dollars.”

The legislation, S-2368, would apply to towns that accept grants or aid from the state or federal governments after Nov. 2 for replenishing storm-damaged beaches.

The bill is still at the committee level and would likely not be considered further until the new legislative session in 2013.

Eric Sauder December 9, 2012 at 06:14 am
It does seem like those of us that use a particular beach (both property owners and shoobies) should take more ownership of their beach. That is being done now on a smaller scale. Perhaps it should be expanded. That's not such a bad idea really.
Wyatt December 9, 2012 at 10:10 am
Beaches are NOT free, dude! It is a question of who pays to keep them in good condition. Most fair that should be those who are using them.
Wyatt December 9, 2012 at 10:34 am
Well, "the beaches should be free to the locals" folks have appeared at last. But some of you need to turn in your "lOCal" bumper stickers because you are proposing to let the shoobie property owners off the hook. Their money is needed, but not their presence.
Tag fees are user fees, they FAIRLY put the cost of that which is being used on the users. Those who don't wish to use are not burdened with the related costs. The "I want to use it, but only if its free" folks are not realistic. Nothing is free, someone pays the bills. "Beach tags free to the locals" schemes leave the revenue stream to cover beach maintenance costs short, so those costs would be borne by the taxpayers anyway. But then, if our taxes go up, we get a bigger deduction on our income tax returns, so the federal and state governments would get to contribute to beach maintenance anyway.
Eleanor December 9, 2012 at 11:16 am
A few months ago a former police officer on pension who had two 'retirement' jobs paid for by OC taxpayers and one of them was supervising the beach tag inspectors was arrested. Not to bring up the arrest because that could be settled in a way that exonerates him but how much was he being paid, how much are beach tag inspectors being paid, how much does it cost to manufacture beach tags and deal with the other costs of the program?
If beach tags are directly related to costs to maintain the beaches and protect them in summer that is one thing. But if people are paying for beach tags in order to maintain the beach tag program bureaucracy of product, salaries and benefits, and to funnel money into other budget items instead of cutting costs on those items, then it should be looked into. The city should take advantage of The Patch readership and post the annual costs of salaries, benefits and tags in comparison with what they collect by selling beach tags. Also as others mentioned - there are many great beaches in the country - in the south and west coast - that are protected, well maintained and have to deal with the same issues of cleanup and erosion and they have never had beach tags.
Louise December 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Beach Tag fees should not be revoked--I am a property owner and the $20.00 per person yearly fee is a small price to pay to keep our OC Beaches protected and beautiful. I do not lend our seasonal family tags to our tenants either, for this same reason (OC needs the continuing revenue to maintain beaches). I still remember (in the 70s) when Beach Tags were first instituted, my step dad thought it was the most ludicrious idea (he also though when they raised the Tacony Bridge to a dime that was equally ludicrious) but you should pay for what you use--that way if you don't ever go to the beach, everyone else is not paying for the maintenance you use.
Liz December 9, 2012 at 01:09 pm
This is a very good point. I have no problem buying seasonal tags, but it would be interesting to know how much this program actually costs. Also, some days,I have not been "checked' on the beach and others, four different kids come by within an hour.
Karen Bolden December 9, 2012 at 02:21 pm
I intend to support the proposed legislation. Beach fees are out of control and the amount charged has never been proven to be directly proportioned to its actual use. In fact, I have seen the opposite: in spite of higher fees guards are taken off my beach ( over the last few years ) before Labor Day etc.
Wyatt December 9, 2012 at 02:33 pm
If your support helps the proposal succeed I hope your savings in beach tag fees are not exceeded by an increase in your taxes, or rent, and that you are able to continue to enjoy a well maintained beach.
You might want to research your comments a bit. "Out of control"? Compare the growth in the price of a seasonal tag from when they first came out in 1976 to the general rate of inflation. I'll bet its less. "Proven in proportioned to actual use". Have you asked? I'll bet someone from the City Office of Finance would be pleased to provide the breakdown and % of total of the various costs covered by the fees. Guards are fewer in the days before Labor Day not because of financial considerations but because many of them return to school. Those same factors also result in fewer beachgoers during those days as compared with mid-summer.
Douglas Bergen (Editor) December 9, 2012 at 02:45 pm
Looks like the city spent about $400,000 on the beach fee operation in 2012 ($335,000 in salaries and wages and $57,500 in other expenses) to collect about $4 million in beach fee revenue. https://imageserv10.team-logic.com/mediaLibrary/242/2012_FinalBudget.pdf
archie struthers December 9, 2012 at 02:55 pm
Just can't agree with getting a free pass if you are a resident, unless its free for everyone. Seems like bad timing for this bill to appear, given the infrastructure needs of the town post Sandy .
Karen Bolden December 9, 2012 at 02:59 pm
The growth of inflation as a justification of the rising beach fees? That is rediculous unless you are adjusting the fess to pay, as some have rightly asserted, for increase wages, pensions etc. That, Mr. Wyatt, is exactly why my statement is completely accurate. Tax payers are tired of Municipal Governments doing as they please with our money.
Mark Canfield December 9, 2012 at 03:17 pm
O.K., so you want everyone to pay a fee to use the beach. So all of the beaches in O.C. will be treated equally in terms of how they're maintained and managed, right? Wrong......The beaches in the far south end of the city have been deteriorating for years as they are apparently, not worthy of being replenished. The downtown beaches are given far more attention due to the proximity of revenue generating commercial businesses and the political clout that they enjoy.
Wyatt December 9, 2012 at 04:11 pm
You can't seriously have expected wages and costs to have remained at their 1976 levels for over 35 years. As such costs have "enjoyed" inflationary increases, so have the fees. But this process is far from being demonstrative of being "out of control".
Jim December 9, 2012 at 04:20 pm
Who likes beach fees? I sure don't; but they seem to be a necessary evil. Services cost money. We have a great beach here in town. We are blessed to be sure and we take good care of our greatest assets. Our beaches are clean, safe and well managed.Since the storm, our city employees have worked long hours to repair the damage and prepare for the winter storms. We are attempting to recover from a disaster the likes of which few have ever experienced. The economics are far reaching and of long duration. As we work at reconstruction and contemplate how we will fare in our short and long term recovery, some of our representatives in Trenton have decided to add to our burden by suggesting we absorb another 3 to 4 million dollar nut. How disingenuous. How out of touch. A very sad, sad commentary.
Jim Arthur
John Flood December 9, 2012 at 06:46 pm
In the late 80's & early 90's prior to the current long term beach replenishment project the water was under the boardwalk in many locations. In the area of 17th street it was about 10 feet from the sand to the boardwalk. At that same period we were hit by several major storms that destroyed several sections of the boardwalk along with private property damage. Since that time including this last storm Ocean City in 20 years has not lost a section of boardwalk and up until this historic storm very little private property damage on the oceanfront. The point is the funds provided by the federal, state and local governments for beach pumping is not for recreational purposes it is for "Shore protection". The recreational uses of the beaches is a by product.
The beach fee is a users fee only paid by those that want to use the beach to off set the cost to clean, protect, maintain, provide access, restrooms and other costs. It is a fact that property taxes in New Jersey are to high and if this bill is passed it will just make the tax bills in towns that have beaches higher and do nothing to lower taxes in any other community.. This is a horrible idea.
Eric Sauder December 9, 2012 at 07:06 pm
Thanks for the info Doug.
Eric Sauder December 9, 2012 at 08:18 pm
Archie the rationale is that property owners pay the costs associated with running this city thru their taxes. Tourists do not pay taxes here (at least not directly). Consequently I would be alright with exempting property owners. They're already contributing more than their fair share. But the problem, as I see it, is that IF they make beach tags free to the property owners, and those property owners make those beach tags available to their renters, virtually no one will be buying beach tags.
I generally agree with you except for that distinction. There is no "free." Tourists too should contribute to the costs of guarding and maintaining the beaches they use. You could argue that property owners are re-imbursed thru rental income, but some are day trippers. Yes the beaches should be free but the truth of the matter is it costs money to guard and maintain them. The question is who is going to pay for it? How do you do it equitably? To those of you who say it should be free its not free. Someone has to pay to maintian and guard those beaches.
Eric Sauder December 9, 2012 at 08:24 pm
If we could find a better way to do it I'd be all for it. We could recoup the $400,000 / year it costs to operate the beach tag program. But to just slap it on the property owners so its free for everyone else is not fair to the property owners.
Eric Sauder December 9, 2012 at 08:28 pm
Contrary to what some people may think, there are people who live here that do not rent out their properties in the summer.
Frank Worrell December 9, 2012 at 10:18 pm
By law the city can only collect beach fees to cover expenses. They cannot make a profit.If you do not use the beaches you pay 0 if you use the beaches you should pay. Property taxes will rise big time to cover the 4 million collected . You dont like fees I guess the course should be free .. It is unless you play golf there.I hate to open this can of worms but the marina was purchessed with greea acre funds that is money returned to OC from the county.
Eric Sauder December 10, 2012 at 06:09 am
Frank I don't know where the marina came from but it was not purchased soley with green acre funds. The city received around $700,000 in green acre funds. The purchase price was $3 million. Anyway you look at it, whether it was municipal tax dollars that were used to purchase the marina or county dollars reimbursed to the municiplaity, it was our tax dollars that paid $3 millon for that marina. And that green acre parcel will now be used as a parking lot for a private for profit business operating on public land paid for with our tax dollars. Not only that we're paying that private venture $100,000 a year in operating costs. This was a HORRIBLE deal for the tax payers. Where is THEIR return on the $3 million?
Steve Parker December 10, 2012 at 01:34 pm
One way or another the politicians like Sweeney will get their money. In this case it would shift the burden of the cost to maintain the beaches in a safe and clean manner to the local taxpayers eventually. I do not believe the local taxpayers should bear 100% of the burden, partcularly when there are literally tens of thousands of day trippers using the beaches. They should help in these costs by paying their share of the costs via beach fees.
archie struthers December 11, 2012 at 02:53 pm
There was an interesting article in the Press today regarding beach fees. Although there is a merit to discussion of fees, and where they are allocated, the timing of ending them now seems silly. If there was ever a time where shore towns , even the wealthy ones needed some relief, it's after Sandy.
You can argue that beaches should be free, but someone in the city has to clean them at days end. Beach tag sales are a logical user fee that reduce the local property taxes. I'm assuming the excess helps fund replenishment.
Douglas Bergen (Editor) December 11, 2012 at 02:59 pm
I just posted links to two pieces from The Press (story and op-ed column) if anybody's interested: http://oceancity.patch.com/articles/shore-towns-rally-against-bill-that-would-end-beach-tags
Wyatt December 11, 2012 at 03:28 pm
What makes you think there is an "excess". There is not.
The two posted articles cited by Doug Bergen are excellent.
Jim December 11, 2012 at 05:06 pm
The legislators proposing elimination of the beach fees demonstrate just how out of touch some of these people become after they are elected to office. If the issue is examined there is clearly no rational explanation for their proposal. As many folks have pointed out, there are state and federal funds in many venues that charge fees for use. Makes absolutely no sense. What concerns me most is the cruelty of such a suggestion in the face of such utter destruction wreaked on parts of our coast. Here in town we have friends and neighbors who have lost everything, homes and infrastructure have been damaged and destroyed. Our business district is bravely struggling to recover. Talk about kicking someone when they are down. Sweeney and Doherty need to be recalled.
Jim Arthur
archie struthers December 11, 2012 at 06:02 pm
I'm quite sure there is an excess after costs on beach fee relative to employee renumeration . Just don't know where it lands .
Kevin Braden December 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm
No beach tags in The Wildwoods N.J. How do they do it ?
Nancy December 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Not to mention the idea of eliminating the beach tag fee also comes with the idea of providing free beach restrooms for the tourists. Who will be keeping these free restrooms clean and in working order? The tourists? I don't think so. Ocean City taxpayers, that who.
Eric Sauder December 29, 2012 at 07:20 pm
Archie I just came back to this (after a bit of a holiday vacation) and looked at the budgeted numbers Doug posted. Like you I'd like to know how that $4mill gets spent. You have (roughly) $400,000 going to beach tag operations and another $1.4 budgeted for beach patrol. It would seem that the money the City spends on beach replenishment can also come out of that reveunue stream (though I have nothing to back that up). So around $2 mill / year is yet to be accounted for. Are we spending around $2 mill a year on beach replenishment? I doubt it. I'd like to see a break down. According to what I read, revnue from beach tags must be spent on the beaches. How it gets spent in another question entirely.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Ocean City Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
steef June 18, 2013 at 08:27 am
one more thing, it seems to be permanently formatted for a smart phone. i have all of this extraRead More real estate on the right of my screen. if we're not careful, some developer is going to pick it up and put 8 duplexes over there!!!