By Ward Peck
Editor
    Following protracted wrangling over the specific language, a split Cape Elizabeth Town Council voted to place a non-binding referendum on the Nov. 7 ballot to gauge public support for non-resident parking fees at Fort Williams Park.
    The council voted 4-3 to place the following question on the ballot: “Would you favor the Town establishing a pay/display parking fee for non-residents at Fort Williams Park to help support park maintenance and improvements?”
    The final question was significantly different from the original language approved by the town manager. The original question would have asked voters, “Would you favor the Town establishing a pay/display parking program at Fort Williams Park.”
    The changes evolved piecemeal as councilors attempted to strike a balance between giving voters enough information to make an informed decision and leaving the question open ended enough to allow a future town council leeway to establish a fee program different from the one the council voted down last month.
    A bare majority of the council, Councilors Mary Ann Lynch, Anne Swift-Kayatta, Cynthia Dill and Paul McKenney, was satisfied with the final language. Councilors David Backer, Carolyn Fritz and Michael Mowles voted against the final referendum question.
    That program, which would have set parking fees at $5 per day or $20 per season for private vehicles and $20 per day or $100 per season for buses in addition to other rules and stipulations regarding the fee scheme.
    Councilor Lynch proposed at the outset of the debate to add a clause to the question to help clarify how the fees would be used. Her suggestion, “to support park maintenance and improvements,” was immediately added to the question.
    Several residents spoke against the concept of fees at Fort Williams in general and the referendum language in particular.
    Fred Prince objected to the non-binding nature of the referendum, and accused the council of having it both ways, accepting the public’s opinion if the referendum passed and rejecting public opinion if it failed.
    Resident Betty Crane noted the language did not contain the word “fee,” and argued not everyone in town may have been following the debate as closely as others. She said those people might not know that the pay/display “program” refers to establishing a fee.
    Fritz proposed an amendment replacing the word “program” with the word “fee.”
    Lynch argued against the change, saying it was “misleading” because those who will be voting on the referendum will not be required to pay the fee as they already support the park’s operation through taxes.
    Dill countered that if the word “fee” is included, the wording should be explicit that such a fee would not apply to residents.
    McKenney said he was “bothered by the fact that misinformation is being printed in the papers” and stated elsewhere that under pay/display system, residents would no longer pay to maintain the park.
    “Whether we have the program or not, residents will continue to pay,” McKenney said. “It is important to not differentiate. Cape residents will pay. We are not transferring the cost of [operating] the park from residents to non-residents.”
    Backer brought the council to order reminding them they were considering the amendment at hand, which would only change the word “program” to “fee.” When the vote was called, the council passed the amendment unanimously.
    Following that vote, Swift-Kayatta immediately proposed a second amendment to include the phrase “for non-residents.” She said voters need to be aware the fee will not apply to them.
    Fritz objected to the amendment, saying the language was becoming too specific.
    “We are attaching a program that we turned down to this referendum.”
    Several councilors agreed that the council has already rejected a specific program and including such language was tantamount to voting twice on the same matter. They argued if the voters approve the referendum and a future council resurrects a pay/display system, if will not necessarily be the same program.
    Swift-Kayatta referred the council to the minutes of the previous meeting and pointed out the council actually did vote to place the specific proposal. Those minutes state the council voted 5-2 “…the Cape Elizabeth Town Council places the recommendations of the Pay Display Working Group to the public for a vote at the November 7, 2006 election.
    McKinney suggested he could support Swift-Kayatta’s amendment if she added the word “help” to underscore the fact that residents would not stop supporting the park’s operation through their property taxes. Swift-Kayatta accepted the suggestion and added the word “help.”
    The council voted 4-3 to accept the amendment to add the words “for non-residents” and “help.” Backer, Fritz and Mowles voted against the amendment.
    Following the amendment vote, the council voted to approve the entire question, “Would you favor the Town establishing a pay/display parking fee for non-residents at Fort Williams Park to help support park maintenance and improvements?” with councilors split 4-3 along the same lines as the previous vote.