Sandpoint mayor, planning staff defend in-lieu parking fee process amid public concern over City Beach hotel

Mayor Grama and planning staff told the Sandpoint City Council on Feb. 19 that there is no missing payment, no building permit, and no collected in-lieu fees tied to the proposed hotel at 56 Bridge Street, and that a site-specific parking demand study authorized by city code reduced the project’s required on-site parking from the ITE manual figure.

The mayor said city code 9-5-1(e) allows property owners to submit site-specific demand analyses rather than rely on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) tables, and that the owner of the 56 Bridge Street parcel produced a regional study finding a 41-space demand rather than the roughly 141 spaces implied by the ITE hotel standard. "So that has been done," the mayor said, adding that the planning director has authority to accept that study.

Why it matters: Residents at the meeting raised questions spanning legal interpretation of the in-lieu fee, how much a developer would pay, and whether Sandpoint residents would be charged to park at City Beach if a paid-parking policy is adopted. Those concerns intersect with the council’s forthcoming paid-parking policy and the city’s adopted in-lieu fee program.

Planning Director Jason Welker told the council the in-lieu program in city code (9-5-18) charges $10,000 per space as an alternative to constructing on-site spaces, and that the fee is collected at building-permit application. Welker and the mayor said no building permit has been submitted for the hotel and no in-lieu fees have been collected.

Public commenters pressed the council on two fronts. At public comment, Julie Crawford urged the council to reject charging city residents to park at City Beach, arguing that federal Land and Water Conservation Fund rules would not allow residents to be charged more than nonresidents in certain cases. "Charging our city residents to pay to park at City Beach is not putting our residents first," she said. Jennifer Cox said she had reviewed internal communications and a FOIA response and asked the council to revisit earlier agreements with the developer, saying she believed the city and developer had discussed a lower fee than some interpretations of code would suggest.

Council and staff responses focused on process and timing rather than policy conclusions. Staff emphasized that the paid-parking policy is under development and will come forward for council consideration in the spring, that the city plans additional outreach, and that off-site, shared parking options (for example, agreements with the hospital or school district for event parking) are being pursued by the hotel developers as part of their engagement.

Ending: The council did not take formal action on the hotel or the paid-parking policy at the Feb. 19 meeting. Staff urged residents to contact the city for project-specific facts and indicated the paid-parking policy will come to the council later this spring for review and possible action.