Public Input On Proposed Sandy Hook Fee Increase To Be Weighed

612
By Liz Sheehan
SANDY HOOK – There were but a few people who attended the open house the National Park Service held on Aug. 31 at the Sandy Hook Chapel to give information on its proposal to increase parking fees at Sandy Hook Gateway National Recreation Area but there were a lot of questions asked by those who were there.
This was the third of three sessions the park service conducted for the public to question the proposal to increase daily parking fees in 2017 from $10 per car, to $15 per car; and increase season passes from $75 per car to $100 per car. The daily oversize vehicle fees would be raised from $30 a day to $50 a day; and from $150 a season to $200 per season.
Similar increases had been proposed in 2014, Daphne Yun, a spokesperson for the park service said, but they were not implemented because the NPS had “to prove public support” for the new fees and was not able to do so.
Yun said Tuesday that the park service will compile all of the comments it has received by mail, email and at open houses to assess public support for the suggested fee increases. The public comment period ran from July 29 through Sept. 5, she said. No time was given for when the decision concerning the possible fee changes would be made.
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, (D-NJ) who attended the Wednesday session questioned Michael Wisniewski, a NPS official, about his statement that the park service had to adjust its fees so as not to unfairly compete with local facilities, one of the reasons cited by Wisniewski for the proposed increase. Pallone said he thought that the purpose of the national parks was to provide affordable alternatives for recreation.
On Sept. 2, Yun said the policy cited by Wisniewski was included in a reference manual for Recreation Fee Project Management that states, “The fee for a service like camping must be set so it does not create unfair competition to similar, private and public facilities and services in the area.” Yun did not respond on Tuesday to an email asking if parking for a beach would qualify under the category of a service like camping.
Pallone also said if the fees are increased and Sandy Hook is not more affordable than other local beaches, the attendance at Sandy Hook may drop and “might not generate as much money.”
One of the reasons cited for the increase by the park service is “to increase our parking fee to maintain and improve the current quality of services.”
An NPS statement concerning the fee increases distributed at the public meeting said that “Current prices are below comparable prices for nearby beaches.” It cited Sea Bright fees as $8 a day and $100 a season for a beach pass, with those age 11 and under free. (This season, Sea Bright started $1 an hour parking fees). It also said Monmouth Beach charges $75 a season for beach fees, with those age 11 and under free, and $40 for parking for a season. However, Monmouth Beach also has free parking available, on the streets near the beach.
Richard McCormick of Hopatcong, said he did not object to the fee increase but wanted to see everyone who parked at Sandy Hook pay a fee – not just those who use the beach. He said some families came to use the picnic grounds at Fort Hancock and parked for free, then some of the family members walked over to the beach. He also recommended the hours of paid parking be extended until 7 p.m.
In a letter distributed by Pallone at the meeting, he said he had asked the park service to provide him with statistical data concerning Sandy Hook, such as visitor counts and revenue data, and how the increases of the fees would be used, and would these funds be used in Sandy Hook. Yun said on Tuesday that 20 percent of the increase in the fees would go to the NPS and 80 percent to Gateway.
“I am opposed to the proposed fee increase, which would dramatically increase the fees from the 2011 levels,” Pallone’s letter said. The increase “would be an additional financial burden to the individuals and families who enjoy visiting Sandy Hook, and would potentially damage the local economy, which relies in part on tourism.”
The park service in a statement distributed at the meeting said the increased revenue from the proposed fees would provide “improved visitor services including the repair and maintenance of buildings and facilities, habitat restoration, enhanced amenities, resource protection, and additional interpretation programs.”