Residents and non residents may be paying more for beach parking permits at Fortune’s Rocks, Middle Beach and at Biddeford Pool this summer. The Biddeford City Council will conduct a second reading and vote on the proposed increases on Feb. 15. Here, a beach walk is enjoyed at Fortunes Rocks in 2020. Gregory Rec/Portland Press Herald Photo
BIDDEFORD — Beachgoers in Biddeford — both locals and visitors— will likely pay more to go to the beach this summer.
The City Council is poised to hold a second reading on the plan for increasing beach parking permit fees on Feb. 15.
Under the proposal that passed the first reading on Feb. 1, residents would pay $35 for a season permit for their first vehicle, up from $28; and $20 for each additional vehicle registered at the same address, up from $15. Resident seniors 65 and older would pay $20, up from $15. Nonresidents would pay $245 for a season permit, up from $153; a 7-day permit would cost $140, up from $79; a three-day permit would be $75, up from $46; and a one-day permit, $35, up from $22.
If approved, parking permits would increase at Fortune’s Rocks Beach, Middle Beach, and Gilbert R. Boucher Park at Biddeford Pool.
Council President Norman Belanger said the issue first came before the City Council and was moved to the Policy Committee for review.
“There was discussion as to what we were looking for — self-sufficiency or subsidy from the general fund — the consensus was it should be self-sufficient, so the cost of lifeguards and cleaning of and maintaining the building (would) be placed on the users, the people who park there,” said Belanger. He indicated the proposed fees would result in self-sufficiency, with a slight buffer for the future.
Not all agree with proposed changes.
“I don’t agree with enforcing fees on local residents,” said Councilor Bob Mills.
Residents paid about $20,000 more in permits fees than did non-residents in 2021.
Total revenue came in at $132,995 in 2021, Biddeford Recreation Director Carl Walsh said in a memo to the City Council. According to the Recreation Department, revenue from resident permits totaled $76,664; revenue from non-resident permits came in at $56,287, and there was $44 in miscellaneous funds. Expenses were $154,200 in 2021.
Totals for this year will not be available until after the end of the fiscal year, June 30. Walsh said the proposed 2023 budget currently shows expenses of $165,500.
A rise in permit fees is necessary, in part, to be able to provide lifeguards at the public beaches, Walsh said in the memo.
The last increase was in 2019. Walsh noted securing and keeping lifeguards is an issue in many communities.
“In order for us to remain somewhat competitive we continue to make adjustments,” said Walsh. “Some have been in the form of wage scale adjustments, others in course reimbursement. We are also considering a bonus for those that remain with us the majority of the summer. The increase in fees is meant to help us keep pace with these adjustments and help keep us competitive.”
“The piece that troubles me is the citizens paying to have access to the beach,” said Councilor Marc Lessard. “In my mind these (fees) effects the people least able to pay. These are the people who don’t have a backyard to be able to enjoy. … There’s something that bothers me about having people have to pay to go on the beach. It’s just wrong, it really is. It is a recreation. …”
Lessard said he wondered if paying for parking at St. Louis Field, Waterhouse Field or May Field would be next.
“I can’t support it for local residents,” said Lessard.
Mills said he would prefer any increase to be solely for non-residents.
City Clerk Carmen Morris said people are already inquiring about beach permits, which become effective June 15. With the first reading Feb. 1, and the second Feb. 15, she said the city hopes to have the permits available online by March 1.
Belanger said he believed $35 for a resident pass, up from $28, is not a significant increase, “and is far under most of our neighbors.”
Mills moved to table the matter and send it back to the Policy Committee, but the motion was defeated. A vote to approve the matter in the first reading passed, with Mills and Lessard opposed.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
