Commissioners debate Southpointe Park parking fees and county permitting fees; motion to add specific parking-item to agenda fails

Board members spent an extended portion of the meeting debating user fees for Southpointe Park and the county’s building and development fee schedule.

Commissioner Richard Bailey asked the board to consider eliminating the $7 daily vehicle access fee for Gaston County residents at the Southpointe Park access point, arguing that no other county parks charge parking fees and that the fee could depress use by local taxpayers. Bailey said shelter rentals and overnight RV fees were more logical revenue sources than day parking fees and suggested trialing reduced fee levels.

Parks and recreation staff and the county manager urged patience. The county’s parks director, Michael, said the access fee program had only been in effect two months and that the parks staff had not yet collected enough data to judge sufficiency; he reported roughly $8,300 in vehicle access user fees for July (about $6,200) and August (about $2,100) since the policy began on July 1. The county manager said fee revenues were intended in part to help fund new park-maintenance positions and to reduce property-tax subsidies for park operations.

Commissioner Alan Fraley and Commissioner Bob Hoges said the park is a unique amenity with higher maintenance needs and potential overnight rental plans; they opposed immediately rescinding the access fee without more operational data. Fraley said the county’s fee structure was new and that staff needed a full year of data to evaluate changes.

Bailey sought unanimous consent to add a separate agenda item to revisit Southpointe Park access fees and consider amending the fee schedule specifically for parks. The board voted on whether to add the discussion item to the meeting agenda; the motion to add the item failed on a 6–1 vote to add (meaning the board did not reach unanimous consent to add it to that meeting). The larger motion to amend the building and development fee schedule then proceeded; after discussion the board recorded a 5–2 tally on the fee-schedule amendment (vote recorded in meeting transcript). Commissioners asked staff to return with a fuller analysis of costs, revenue and recommended fee levels at a future work session.

Commissioners also discussed courthouse parking fees in a separate pass: the board asked staff to prepare an analysis of reinstating or revising parking fees at the courthouse and to return that analysis at a work session.

The park-fee discussion included concerns about public safety and maintenance: some commissioners said open no-fee access could increase vagrancy and policing needs, while others argued fees may deter county residents. Several board members emphasized that the parks program has only recently implemented the fee structure and that staff should be given time to present a full-year set of data and operational recommendations.