Fort parking fees may go on ballot (printed 8/18/06)
By Ward Peck
Editor
Voters in Cape Elizabeth will likely have a say in November whether to impose parking fees at Fort Williams.
The town council voted to place the question on the fall ballot after failing to approve the fees themselves by a vote of 4-3 following a lively and at times hostile public hearing.
Roughly 30 members of the public spoke out against the so-called “Pay/Display” parking system in which non-residents would be required to purchase a $5 a day parking voucher. Visitors could also purchase $20 season passes. Fees for commercial buses and trolleys would pay $20 per day or $100 per season.
No members of the public spoke in favor of imposing the fees.
Those who did speak gave a number of different reasons why Fort Williams should remain free and open to all. Some residents criticized the town for not finding other ways to finance needed maintenance and upkeep.
Many residents seized upon the cost of maintaining the Park, estimated to cost the average Cape Elizabeth homeowner $50 in property taxes, as appropriate and manageable.
“$50 per household is money well spent,” said Fred Prince.
In light of what those residents considered a modest surcharge to operate the park, several feared a loss of prestige and goodwill if the town began charging non-residents to use the park.
“The seal of the town is the (Two Lights) lighthouse. I hope we don’t have to paint a dollar sign over it,” said Brad Smith, a volunteer at the lighthouse museum who said visitors often balk at the museum’s $2 entrance fee.
Resident Bob Trippler spoke of “unintended consequences,” if the system is imposed, including the added cost of the system, more wage expenses, and frequent upgrades for the system. Several other residents picked up on the theme of unintended consequences. Laurie Jensen wondered if visitors paying the fee would expect a higher level of service including fixed bathrooms and trashcans and believes the park would suffer, as in-state non-residents would no longer frequent the park to the same degree.
Several residents supported the idea of charging commercial users of the park such as tour bus operators; while others felt fees to rent portions of the park should be increased. Someone suggested wedding parties be required to pay a user fee and still others suggested the gift shop prices were too low.
Following the public comments, members of the council offered their own perspective.
Council Chair David Backer recalled the “contentious budget debate,” several months earlier when many members of the public appealed to the council to institute a user fee at Fort Williams to alleviate budget constraints. But he said the outpouring of support for keeping the park free, which he called “heartwarming, persuaded him He noted the council had received “one or two” emails in support of a parking fee.
Councilor Paul McKenney pointed out the $50 in property taxes used for the park only covers the minimum amount needed to keep the park open. He said he personally feels people who use something should be required to contribute toward it. “But given the feelings and emotions…expressed by a cross-section of people, it would be inappropriate to support this fee structure.”
Councilor Swift-Kayatta picked up on McKenney’s observation that the park’s needs are greater than what the operating budget allows.
“Fort Williams is a jewel, but it has a lot of needs,” Swift-Kayatta said. She mentioned several of those needs, including the deteriorating Goddard Mansion, bleachers and stone walls in the park, that she said would require hundreds of thousands of dollars over the current $125,000 operating budget.
“The fort is not free,” Swift-Kayatta said. “The citizens of Cape are the minority of users but pay 100 percent of the costs. The majority of users pay nothing. This is about who will pay. We can’t stop maintaining it.”
Swift-Kayatta said she has heard from many residents in favor of the fees, although she acknowledged they apparently did not attend the meeting. She also referenced a poll that showed a majority of people in the state would pay to use the park.
Councilor Mary Ann Lynch, who has been viewed as the driving force behind the fee initiative also noted the near-term costs facing the park.
“It will cost $400,000 to maintain Goddard Mansion as a ruin,” she said. "Batteries are crumbling. We have needs with costs that have not even been assessed.”
Lynch called the port-o-potties in the park “embarrassing,” and said proper bathrooms need to be installed.
“We need to do a better job maintaining the park,” Lynch said.
Councilor Cynthia Dill also expressed support for the proposed fee structure.
“We have a responsibility as public officials,” Dill said. “During the school budget debate, a parade of people begged us to increase money for the school.”
Dill said there were several good ideas for instituting fees at Fort Williams, and the pay/ display proposal was one of them. She said the system would give the town more data regarding who uses the park, which will help with future decisions. During Dill’s comments several members of the public booed and heckled the council.
Councilor Carolyn Fritz, who has been consistent in her opposition to any fee at the park, said members of the public had already expressed her reasons for voting against the proposal.
Councilor Michael Mowles, maintained his position on the matter has been consistent, saying he will vote against the proposal.
Following the proposals defeat, the council immediately picked up on a suggestion earlier in the evening that the matter be voted on by the public. After determining there was still enough time to place the question on the ballot, the council debated the merits of doing so. The council voted 5-2 (Mowles and Fritz against) to place the item on the November 7 ballot. However, the placement of the referendum question on the ballot is not assured.
The council will vote again at its Sept. 11 meeting on the exact language. If a majority of councilors cannot agree on that language, the question will likely not appear on the ballot.
Editor
Voters in Cape Elizabeth will likely have a say in November whether to impose parking fees at Fort Williams.
The town council voted to place the question on the fall ballot after failing to approve the fees themselves by a vote of 4-3 following a lively and at times hostile public hearing.
Roughly 30 members of the public spoke out against the so-called “Pay/Display” parking system in which non-residents would be required to purchase a $5 a day parking voucher. Visitors could also purchase $20 season passes. Fees for commercial buses and trolleys would pay $20 per day or $100 per season.
No members of the public spoke in favor of imposing the fees.
Those who did speak gave a number of different reasons why Fort Williams should remain free and open to all. Some residents criticized the town for not finding other ways to finance needed maintenance and upkeep.
Many residents seized upon the cost of maintaining the Park, estimated to cost the average Cape Elizabeth homeowner $50 in property taxes, as appropriate and manageable.
“$50 per household is money well spent,” said Fred Prince.
In light of what those residents considered a modest surcharge to operate the park, several feared a loss of prestige and goodwill if the town began charging non-residents to use the park.
“The seal of the town is the (Two Lights) lighthouse. I hope we don’t have to paint a dollar sign over it,” said Brad Smith, a volunteer at the lighthouse museum who said visitors often balk at the museum’s $2 entrance fee.
Resident Bob Trippler spoke of “unintended consequences,” if the system is imposed, including the added cost of the system, more wage expenses, and frequent upgrades for the system. Several other residents picked up on the theme of unintended consequences. Laurie Jensen wondered if visitors paying the fee would expect a higher level of service including fixed bathrooms and trashcans and believes the park would suffer, as in-state non-residents would no longer frequent the park to the same degree.
Several residents supported the idea of charging commercial users of the park such as tour bus operators; while others felt fees to rent portions of the park should be increased. Someone suggested wedding parties be required to pay a user fee and still others suggested the gift shop prices were too low.
Following the public comments, members of the council offered their own perspective.
Council Chair David Backer recalled the “contentious budget debate,” several months earlier when many members of the public appealed to the council to institute a user fee at Fort Williams to alleviate budget constraints. But he said the outpouring of support for keeping the park free, which he called “heartwarming, persuaded him He noted the council had received “one or two” emails in support of a parking fee.
Councilor Paul McKenney pointed out the $50 in property taxes used for the park only covers the minimum amount needed to keep the park open. He said he personally feels people who use something should be required to contribute toward it. “But given the feelings and emotions…expressed by a cross-section of people, it would be inappropriate to support this fee structure.”
Councilor Swift-Kayatta picked up on McKenney’s observation that the park’s needs are greater than what the operating budget allows.
“Fort Williams is a jewel, but it has a lot of needs,” Swift-Kayatta said. She mentioned several of those needs, including the deteriorating Goddard Mansion, bleachers and stone walls in the park, that she said would require hundreds of thousands of dollars over the current $125,000 operating budget.
“The fort is not free,” Swift-Kayatta said. “The citizens of Cape are the minority of users but pay 100 percent of the costs. The majority of users pay nothing. This is about who will pay. We can’t stop maintaining it.”
Swift-Kayatta said she has heard from many residents in favor of the fees, although she acknowledged they apparently did not attend the meeting. She also referenced a poll that showed a majority of people in the state would pay to use the park.
Councilor Mary Ann Lynch, who has been viewed as the driving force behind the fee initiative also noted the near-term costs facing the park.
“It will cost $400,000 to maintain Goddard Mansion as a ruin,” she said. "Batteries are crumbling. We have needs with costs that have not even been assessed.”
Lynch called the port-o-potties in the park “embarrassing,” and said proper bathrooms need to be installed.
“We need to do a better job maintaining the park,” Lynch said.
Councilor Cynthia Dill also expressed support for the proposed fee structure.
“We have a responsibility as public officials,” Dill said. “During the school budget debate, a parade of people begged us to increase money for the school.”
Dill said there were several good ideas for instituting fees at Fort Williams, and the pay/ display proposal was one of them. She said the system would give the town more data regarding who uses the park, which will help with future decisions. During Dill’s comments several members of the public booed and heckled the council.
Councilor Carolyn Fritz, who has been consistent in her opposition to any fee at the park, said members of the public had already expressed her reasons for voting against the proposal.
Councilor Michael Mowles, maintained his position on the matter has been consistent, saying he will vote against the proposal.
Following the proposals defeat, the council immediately picked up on a suggestion earlier in the evening that the matter be voted on by the public. After determining there was still enough time to place the question on the ballot, the council debated the merits of doing so. The council voted 5-2 (Mowles and Fritz against) to place the item on the November 7 ballot. However, the placement of the referendum question on the ballot is not assured.
The council will vote again at its Sept. 11 meeting on the exact language. If a majority of councilors cannot agree on that language, the question will likely not appear on the ballot.
Comments