Sandpoint staff propose paid off-street parking, residents and businesses raise access concerns

City staff presented a proposed parking management plan to the Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 21, outlining a program of paid off‑street parking intended to increase availability for local users and create a dedicated fund for maintenance and upgrades.

The plan would apply to city‑owned off‑street lots — including the City Beach lot, the city lot across from Joel’s, Dock Street (Windbag Marina), Sand Creek and the Pend Oreille Bay Trail lot — and would not add paid meters on on‑street spaces, Jason Welker, city staff, told the commission. The staff proposal would offer a $10 annual pass for city residents and a $20 annual pass for nonresidents (federal grant rules limit price differentials), a proposed maximum daily fee of about $16 at most lots ($20 at Dock Street), and weekday/hourly rates of about $2–$3 during peak weekends to drive turnover. Staff estimated roughly $300,000–$350,000 in annual revenue under current use assumptions.

“This parking management plan was a recommendation in our comprehensive plan and a recommendation from our parking study in ’22,” Welker said. “We’re really trying to improve access for members of the area, to our public resources downtown.”

Why it matters: Sandpoint’s off‑street lots are heavily used in summer and many are overdue for resurfacing and stormwater improvements, staff said. The city’s 2022 parking study counted roughly 1,097 on‑street stalls in the downtown core and about 505 off‑street stalls; staff said about 300–350 of the off‑street stalls lie inside a Land and Water Conservation Fund boundary and therefore are subject to federal grant restrictions on fees and differential pricing.

What staff proposed - Limit paid management to off‑street city lots (not street parking) with dynamic pricing for peak periods at City Beach, Sand Creek and Dock Street. - Offer low‑cost annual passes for resident users (proposed $10) and a $20 annual nonresident pass (federal rules require the nonresident price be no more than twice the resident price if anyone is charged). - Create permit categories for commercial business employees ($200 annual pass) and marina slip holders ($100 annual pass for unlimited parking). - Use revenue to seed a dedicated parking improvement fund for resurfacing, lighting, stormwater treatment and other capital/maintenance needs. Staff cited a $400,000 estimate to resurface the city lot across from Joel’s and an estimated annual maintenance/replacement cost per off‑street stall of about $575 (total annual burden ~ $290,375 for 505 off‑street stalls).

Key technical and legal constraints Welker and other staff emphasized federal constraints tied to previous LWCF (Land and Water Conservation Fund) grants. Because federal funds paid for improvements at City Beach and Windbag Marina, the city is legally limited in how it can price access: “If you charge anybody for parking, you can’t make it free for anybody else,” Welker said, summarizing the LWCF rule that a price for 1 user group may not exceed twice the price charged another. Staff said roughly 348 of the city’s 505 off‑street stalls fall under those federal encumbrances, which shaped the proposed pass pricing.

Public comment and concerns More than two dozen residents, business owners and marina slip holders spoke during public comment. Comments clustered around four themes: resident access (especially for families and people with mobility limits), the size and parking arrangements for a proposed City Beach hotel, enforcement and technology, and geographic fairness (whether Bonner County residents should be treated as local users).

- Several speakers asked for longer free time allowances at City Beach for families. Barbara Little said she worried the hotel and its events would “spill over parking into City Beach” and urged more time for residents to use the beach. Jennifer Alderman Brown and others echoed the request for longer resident time limits.

- Several commenters pressed staff and commissioners to explain why a recent hotel proposal reduced on‑site parking, and whether city code or administrative processes allowed the reduction. Nancy Hastings asked the commission to review the city’s in‑lieu/site‑specific parking provisions and whether approval steps had been adequate after the hotel’s parking demand study revised the required stall count.

- Enforcement and technology questions: multiple speakers favored a license‑plate‑based system (LPR) or mobile‑app kiosks rather than manual chalking and increased police enforcement. Jason Welker said a modern implementation would rely on kiosks or plate recognition and that start‑up costs would be bid and budgeted if the council advances the policy.

- Geographic scope and equity: several commenters proposed a single low‑cost pass for all Bonner County residents rather than city residents only; Welker explained federal rules would require the city to make a twice‑as‑expensive pass available to everyone if it restricted the cheaper pass to a narrower geographic group.

Commission discussion and next steps Commissioners and staff discussed how the plan aims first to improve access for primary users (residents and slip holders) and secondarily to generate funding for maintenance and eventual capital projects such as a parking structure. Welker said a paid parking program also provides the usage and revenue data necessary to justify future capital financing (bonds or public‑private partnerships) should the city decide to build structured parking.

Welker described planned public engagement steps: follow‑up surveys, presentations to the pedestrian/bicycle, sustainability and parks and recreation committees and, after public input, a council presentation expected in late February. He repeatedly said the plan as presented is a policy proposal and that no council action was being taken at the commission meeting.

Actions and formal outcomes The commission did not vote on the parking plan. The only formal action taken during the meeting was approval of the Dec. 17 minutes (motion by Commissioner Dunkel; second by Commissioner Benner; vote recorded as unanimous). No decision was made on the parking policy; staff will continue public engagement and return to council following committee input.

Context and background Staff and multiple commenters referenced the city’s 2022 parking study and the city’s recently adopted comprehensive plan (multimodal transportation chapter, Goal 1a), which recommended development of a parking management plan. Staff also noted the city has not resurfaced some parking lots for decades and that deferred maintenance has created stormwater and safety issues.

What’s next Staff said it will run a public survey in the next month, bring the topic to the pedestrian/bicycle, sustainability and parks commissions and then present a proposal to the City Council after public input. Implementation would require selecting a technology vendor, budgeting startup costs (staff estimated the parking improvement fund currently holds only modest balances) and determining enforcement responsibilities between police and any contracted operator.

Ending Commissioners and staff said they welcomed additional public comment at upcoming committee meetings and at the eventual council hearing, and asked residents who could not attend to watch the city’s posted materials and the forthcoming survey.