Sandpoint staff previews parking‑management plan: passes, paid parking on congested blocks and in‑lieu fees proposed

City planning staff presented an updated parking management plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 15 that proposes targeted paid parking on the busiest downtown blocks, a $40 monthly downtown resident/business employee pass, boat launch fees, and a change to how residential parking requirements in the downtown parking‑exempt zone might be handled.

Jason Welker, the city planner leading the effort, framed the proposal around a planning concept called effective capacity — the industry rule of thumb that a parking facility is operating efficiently when roughly 85% of stalls are occupied. Welker said the city’s 2022 parking study (conducted during a summer week) showed large variances in utilization across lots and blocks. He reported that downtown on‑street stalls were about 57% occupied at the noon peak, while the city parking lot reached 83% occupancy at the same time. Welker said staff’s analysis shows roughly 296 additional street‑parking vehicles could be accommodated at peak hour before reaching the 85% threshold in the downtown study area.

Key proposals staff described:

- Time limits and passes: revise free parking durations for pass holders (current draft: 3 hours in downtown lots for resident/business passes and 6 hours at the city beach; nonresident passes: 2 hours downtown and 3 hours at the city beach). Staff proposed a combined downtown resident/business/employee monthly pass at $40.

- Paid parking targeted to congested blocks: staff asked the commission whether limited paid parking should be reintroduced on the most overused blocks (the “orange/red” areas in staff’s maps) to increase turnover where businesses most need short‑term parking.

- Boat launch fees and parking for waterfront areas: staff proposed boat launch fees modeled on practices in nearby jurisdictions.

- Residential parking requirements and in‑lieu fees: staff proposed changing the exempt‑zone rules so new residential development would have parking obligations based on unit square footage rather than a flat approach. Up to 50% of the requirement could be satisfied through an in‑lieu payment administratively; larger reductions would come before the commission. Staff said in‑lieu funds could be used for future public parking projects.

Welker summarized public outreach: a community survey received 1,811 responses (about 935 self‑reported city residents) and staff met with downtown business groups and the Chamber. He said survey responses indicated that 72% of respondents were neutral or satisfied with downtown parking availability, while 58% rated off‑street parking condition as fair or poor. Welker also noted that a short‑term experiment — closing the city lot for repaving — displaced about 100 vehicles to on‑street spaces and that staff saw substantial available street parking during the noon hour on the day they sampled.

Commissioners asked about enforcement costs and technology options, the likely public reaction to paid parking, and how an in‑lieu fee would be structured so it does not deter development. Welker said kiosk or pay‑by‑phone systems are options; estimated hardware costs for a station are roughly $3,000 each, though service models vary. He also told the commission a public parking structure downtown (if the city chose to pursue one) would carry a high capital cost — roughly $30,000 per stall based on current estimates — and that paid parking and in‑lieu fees would be necessary revenue sources to support such a facility.

Commissioners and staff debated whether to eliminate 4‑hour time limits in peripheral downtown streets to encourage employees to park outside the core (staff suggested this would provide a free alternative to a $40 monthly pass and reduce employee turnover pressure). Views diverged: some commission members said removing those limits would reduce turnover near businesses, others said employees should be encouraged to park further out or buy a pass. Several commissioners recommended more analysis of enforcement costs and of how parking revenues would be used before adopting paid parking.

Staff signaled an implementation timeline: additional code changes and an ordinance (Title 9, Chapter 5) would be prepared and brought to the commission at a future meeting (staff indicated May 20) and to City Council (tentatively May 21). Welker asked commissioners for feedback on policy direction, boundary definitions for the parking‑exempt zone, the proposed pass and fee structure, and the residential parking requirement options.

Jason Welker said the plan aims to improve utilization (move supply toward the effective capacity target), address funding for maintenance of public lots and potential future expansion, and provide predictable rules for developers downtown. As Welker noted during the presentation, the parking‑management choices are tied to the city’s broader goals for downtown form and housing mix; in the planning materials staff cited the comprehensive plan guidance to “explore alternatives to parking requirements to encourage a variety of housing types.”

Next steps in the record: staff will refine the draft ordinance and return to the commission with legal language and recommended conditions; council consideration is scheduled as part of the mayor/staff calendar noted in the public packet.