Sandpoint staff outline paid-parking proposal for City Beach and boat launches; public raises concerns about resort parking waiver

Sandpoint officials presented an early-stage paid-parking plan on Feb. 4 that would add hourly fees, annual passes and boat-launch charges at City Beach and other off-street lots, while public commenters raised concerns about a recent parking waiver issued for a proposed resort and the amount of the in-lieu fee it paid.

Jason Welker, the city’s Community Planning and Development director, told the Planning and Zoning Commission the proposal is a work in progress. “This is in the development stage right now,” Welker said, and he emphasized the city has no timeline to bring a final proposal to City Council: “There’s gonna be no rollout of a policy in the next year. This is something we’re looking at for the future.”

Why it matters: Sandpoint’s off-street parking inventory is heavily used during peak season, and staff said a paid system would both manage demand and create a revenue stream for maintenance. Welker said the city currently spends taxpayer dollars to resurface lots and that a parking-management revenue stream would fund long-term upkeep rather than relying solely on property tax dollars.

What staff proposed and why: Welker said the plan would add resident and nonresident annual passes, extend free pass hours at City Beach (from two hours to four for resident passes), and add boat-launch fees benchmarked to other North Idaho jurisdictions. The draft includes a $50 annual boat-launch pass for Idaho residents and $100 for nonresidents, and a proposal that vehicles with trailers over 20 feet be charged twice the hourly rate because they occupy more space. Welker said a peak hourly rate at City Beach could be about $6 per hour and that off-peak trailer rates might be $4 per hour.

Welker also described a proposed “downtown business pass” and a marina-slip holder pass (he said staff had considered increasing the marina pass fee to $150). He said federal Land and Water Conservation Fund rules require the city to offer resident and nonresident pricing at waterfront parks, limiting nonresident rates to no more than twice resident rates; that constraint informed the $15/$30 example included in staff materials.

Enforcement and revenue allocation: Welker said the city has not decided on enforcement technology. He described trade-offs: gate or pay-on-exit systems would reduce enforcement staff needs, while a gate system would also enable the city to automatically collect fees. The city’s community resource officers currently enforce time limits by “chalking” tires in the commercial district, and those parking fine revenues go to the police fund.

Welker said projected gross annual revenue under staff’s sample ratios would be about $369,584 (staff emphasized that this is a forecast based on the draft ratios). He urged that, if Council adopts a paid-parking policy, the city consider an ordinance that directs some parking revenue to a parking improvement fund for resurfacing and long-term maintenance rather than to general fund uses.

Public comments and concerns about the resort: Two public speakers focused on access to City Beach and a recently proposed resort project. Jennifer Alderman Brown, a Sandpoint resident, urged the commission to keep City Beach free: “I think the treasures of Sandpoint should be free to everyone in city and the county irregardless of their income.”

Jennifer Cox of Clark Fork criticized a parking waiver the resort received. Cox said the resort originally was assessed for 244 parking spaces but was required to provide only 44 after a waiver. Cox cited city code numbers while questioning the in-lieu fee the resort paid: “Per city code 9518, the parking requirements set forth in the parking code may be satisfied in whole or in part by the payment of a nonrefundable parking improvement fee of $10,000 per space,” Cox said, and added that she understood the resort paid $400,000. “Doesn’t this mean that the resort should have paid $1,100,000 as 101 required spaces were eliminated versus a mere $400,000?” Cox asked.

Welker responded that the city’s parking-management work predates the resort proposal, pointing to a 2022 parking study and a 2024 comprehensive-plan action that recommended a parking-management plan. He said the hotel will be required to provide the number of spaces required by code, and that staff had advised the hotel it could not use City Beach for large special-event parking and would need off-site or shuttle arrangements for events such as weddings.

Next steps and public outreach: Welker said the draft will be discussed by several citizen advisory boards before returning to Council, including the Pedestrian-Bicycle Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission in the coming week; staff also plans a public survey and paper copies so all residents can respond. He asked the commission and public to treat the current draft as preliminary and reiterated that implementation and enforcement details remain to be determined.

Commission response: Commissioners asked for additional analysis showing both revenues and offsetting costs (technology or enforcement), suggested seasonal or shoulder-season options (for example, charging only in summer months), and asked about limits on the number of downtown business passes and how to price them relative to market rates. Welker said staff will continue outreach and revise the draft before any Council action.

What was not decided: The commission did not adopt a policy or vote on fees. Welker said the mayor will decide when, if ever, to put a final ordinance before City Council.

Ending note: Welker encouraged residents to use the city website to read meeting materials and to sign up for alerts; he said staff will provide more opportunities for public input as the draft evolves.