|
Post by bchevy on Sept 23, 2014 22:06:57 GMT -4
There are rangers checking permits. I saw one at Terrapin today and Matapeake a few weeks ago. OK, so the permit fees are paying for 4 rangers that are checking for permits. Makes sense to me. NOT WTH are they doing about the PROBLEMS??? Remember the PROBLEMS? I guess the problems don't pay their salaries, the permits do.
|
|
kisinceiwas5
Full Member
Chuck Norris CAN touch MC Hammer.
Posts: 230
|
Post by kisinceiwas5 on Sept 24, 2014 16:05:02 GMT -4
I just wanted to say that I lived on Kent Island for over 20 years. I've now lived in Baltimore for over five years. Resident parking is only $20/year here. That Queen Anne's County wants you to pay $35 for just a park permit is insane. That is all. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 23, 2014 17:02:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Oct 23, 2014 19:09:50 GMT -4
What part of the budget do you want us to take notice of? Specifically.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Oct 23, 2014 21:06:20 GMT -4
I'm curious. If one bought a permit let's say tomorrow...is it good for 1 year or only until the end of 2014?
|
|
|
Post by Tommy on Oct 23, 2014 22:18:58 GMT -4
^ I believe all permits expire on the same calendar date regardless of purchase date, same as the boat launch permits.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 24, 2014 6:42:57 GMT -4
What part of the budget do you want us to take notice of? Specifically. Under Public Works, the budget shows a $2.5 million dollar line item for parks. Seems they "forgot" about this in the posting last night.
|
|
|
Post by puddintane on Oct 24, 2014 14:14:27 GMT -4
I don't get your point. What did they "forget?" Last night's posting was specifically only about county parks that have beaches. The Public Works budget is just for "parks" in general (including the ones with beaches.) There are parks in the county without beaches. Is that not the difference? Unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like it's two separate reports -- one is addressing the county-wide budget for all parks, and the other is addressing only parks with beaches.
The thing I thought was interesting was that the "beach permit program update" posting had the following quote (in boldface type): "Notably, 76% of the total daily/annual permits sold were to non-county residents." I'm not sure why it's in bold and why we're supposed to take special note of that fact. Are we supposed to be happy that the people who are paying the fees are not county residents? Because if so, then doesn't that also mean that county residents are not using the beaches and thus are not enjoying a resource of their own county? Is that supposed to make us happy or alarm us? Only 24% of the people using the beaches are county residents, if I'm reading that correctly -- I'd be curious to know why they feel that is "notable." It could mean many things -- county residents should be thrilled that they aren't being 'taxed' to pay for the monitoring of the county's beach/parks; county residents can't afford the permit fee; county residents are trying to make a point and are taking the stance of 'if you're going to make me pay then I'm just not going to go'; county residents are lawbreakers who are continuing to use the beaches but are defying the permit process by refusing to buy one -- what are they trying to say that's "notable?"
It brings up an interesting aside -- I wonder if you took the volunteer groups that go in and clean up the beaches on the weekends and polled THEIR residency, what percentage of those volunteers would be county residents and what percentage would be non-county residents?
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 24, 2014 18:46:46 GMT -4
They feel it's notable because it makes it easier to SELL to residents who are paying taxes for their park, plus paying another tax to enter them.
The point is that the line item in the budget goes to ALL parks. Not just the non-beach parks. These guys are playing it like the new beach tax is paying all of the freight for the parks in question and that's simply not the case. Or maybe it is, since the parks are in deplorable condition, placards are all but gone, trails are not maintained, beach isn't cleaned. Just what, other than tax collectors at the gate, are we paying for?
|
|
|
Post by puddintane on Oct 26, 2014 23:25:52 GMT -4
From that report, it did appear to me that you're exactly right about that last part -- we are paying a fee in order to pay the salary of the guys who check the gates to make sure that the fee is being paid. If they're looking from a PR standpoint, I don't think it was such a hot idea to highlight the "76% to non-residents" bit -- it certainly doesn't improve their cred with me.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 27, 2014 6:57:10 GMT -4
Sent an email to our illustrious commissioners last week asking for a breakdown of where the $2.5 million for parks was being spent. The silence, as expected, has been deafening.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Oct 27, 2014 8:19:21 GMT -4
^ I believe all permits expire on the same calendar date regardless of purchase date, same as the boat launch permits. Exactly a reason not to get one.
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Oct 27, 2014 10:02:58 GMT -4
From that report, it did appear to me that you're exactly right about that last part -- we are paying a fee in order to pay the salary of the guys who check the gates to make sure that the fee is being paid. If they're looking from a PR standpoint, I don't think it was such a hot idea to highlight the "76% to non-residents" bit -- it certainly doesn't improve their cred with me. I would think pointing that out is important. If we get rid of the fee then QAC residents will be paying to clean the beaches for people outside of the county to use.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 28, 2014 16:26:19 GMT -4
Something (other than the beach tax itself), smells.
The County claims it took in $82,857 in fee and fines since the beach tax program started. Assume for an instance that there were no fines, that would mean there had been 16,571 cars used the park since May, working out to about 90 per day.
The County claims it took in $82,857 in fee and fines since the beach tax program started. Assume for an instance that there were no fines, that would mean if only yearly passes were sold, that would equal 2762 of them.
Obviously neither one of these is the case, but their tax collectors must be writing one helluva lotta tickets.
|
|
|
Post by puddintane on Oct 29, 2014 6:59:56 GMT -4
From that report, it did appear to me that you're exactly right about that last part -- we are paying a fee in order to pay the salary of the guys who check the gates to make sure that the fee is being paid. If they're looking from a PR standpoint, I don't think it was such a hot idea to highlight the "76% to non-residents" bit -- it certainly doesn't improve their cred with me. I would think pointing that out is important. If we get rid of the fee then QAC residents will be paying to clean the beaches for people outside of the county to use. We're ALREADY paying to clean the beaches for people outside of the county to use (and county residents as well, for that matter.) The report they issued appears to be outlining the fact that the fees collected are not going towards cleaning the beaches -- it's going towards policing whether or not beach users have purchased the permits. By all accounts, the staffers whose salaries are paid by the permit fees are not cleaning the beaches or cracking down on users who are depositing trash, they are just checking to see if you've got a permit on your car or not. I'm not faulting the staffers -- they're spread thin and doing what they're told to do. Actually, even that first sentence isn't entirely right. A lot of the beach-cleaning is not done by paid staff -- it's done by volunteers and civic groups. It seems to me that what really needs to happen is that something needs to be done to prevent the trash-throwing to begin with -- purchasing a parking permit doesn't mean you're not going to litter, and the staff hired from the permit fees is not sufficient to crack down on the litterbugs. It looks like, from that 76% figure, that all the permits are doing is keeping county residents off the beaches, while the littering (by the fee-paying beach users) still continues. I don't know the solution, unless we have a staffer on every beach following people around like somebody's mother and saying "You pick that up or else I'm gonna issue you a citation." Pretty sure that's not an affordable option. I just don't think this beach permit is addressing the actual problem, as bchevy said earlier.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 29, 2014 7:07:44 GMT -4
Exactly. It's upsetting because we're paying property taxes to support the parks, and if you look at the figures, precious little goes into maintaining Terrapin anyway, then being taxed again to use it, while the County relies on volunteers to do the work of keeping the parks clean. That's BS.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Oct 29, 2014 9:36:44 GMT -4
It would be an easy fix if QASO and DNR finally came together and started hammering violators and actively patrolling the beaches daily especially Fri - Sun
The people doing it will then move on to get away from the patrols.
I'd gladly pay more even if it meant OT for those officers to do it
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Oct 29, 2014 9:47:37 GMT -4
Exactly. It's upsetting because we're paying property taxes to support the parks, and if you look at the figures, precious little goes into maintaining Terrapin anyway, then being taxed again to use it, while the County relies on volunteers to do the work of keeping the parks clean. That's BS. It seems the residents of QAC pay their share through our county taxes. Non-residents should be the only ones required to pay the usage tax. Residents of QAC can play at Blue Heron golf course cheaper than non-residents, why not the parks? It just doesn't seem like that hard of a decision.
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on Oct 29, 2014 12:16:43 GMT -4
It would be an easy fix if QASO and DNR finally came together and started hammering violators and actively patrolling the beaches daily especially Fri - Sun The people doing it will then move on to get away from the patrols. I'd gladly pay more even if it meant OT for those officers to do it I highly doubt someone is going to liter right in front of a uniformed officer. I'd much rather the county stop allowing people to fish at Terrapin. Make them go to Matapeake, put up high def security cameras that can be monitored and send people tickets in the mail. If the area that people who fish is more compact it can be easier to enforce laws digitally. If I can be fined for speeding via a camera. I don't see why they couldn't fine me for leaving trash.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Oct 29, 2014 13:17:23 GMT -4
Speed Cameras have tags to locate people. You won't locate someone littering on the beach
As said you can hammer violators that are fishing,drinking,having Bon fires, crapting in the bushes etc...90% of the problem is a certain clientele
It would go away greatly if enforced heavily
|
|
|
Post by KITransplant on Oct 29, 2014 14:55:43 GMT -4
Speed Cameras have tags to locate people. You won't locate someone littering on the beach As said you can hammer violators that are fishing,drinking,having Bon fires, crapting in the bushes etc...90% of the problem is a certain clientele It would go away greatly if enforced heavily Dang Canadians, why can't they settle for Lake Ontario? Instead, they've got to come here and litter our beaches with their Labatts!
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Oct 29, 2014 15:20:46 GMT -4
Exactly
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Oct 29, 2014 17:16:47 GMT -4
Exactly. It's upsetting because we're paying property taxes to support the parks, and if you look at the figures, precious little goes into maintaining Terrapin anyway, then being taxed again to use it, while the County relies on volunteers to do the work of keeping the parks clean. That's BS. It seems the residents of QAC pay their share through our county taxes. Non-residents should be the only ones required to pay the usage tax. Residents of QAC can play at Blue Heron golf course cheaper than non-residents, why not the parks? It just doesn't seem like that hard of a decision. Because state funds are also used to pay for these parks.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Oct 29, 2014 18:07:09 GMT -4
Then block them all off like they do Sandy Point and run it that way which pays for full clean up
Cheap rate for QA residents. Higher for others
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 30, 2014 20:39:59 GMT -4
I for 1 no longer go to our permit required parks. As has been said I already pay taxes for those parks & the supposed upkeep, even though it is out of county folks that come here to do volunteer cleanup. Also why would I want to buy a permit when it is only good for a couple of months, as they all expire 12-31-14. I'm also not paying for extra patrols unless someone is going to be assigned to beach areas alone to cite violators. I can tell you that from living here & spending time in the parks those that are leaving trash, crappy dippers, beer bottles etc arent coming in by POV. They are coming in by a pick up/drop off & entering through the back areas. So I will enjoy living here but I will continue to go across the bridge where I can go to any park over there without a permit or at the most having to stop in the office to get a pass but there is no fee (a benefit of being military & a county employee) For the state parks I have a 1 time $10 fee lifetime pass for any of them. Why pay to go here & still have to deal with illegals & all the other garbage?
|
|