 
|
Santa Rosa postpones Howarth Park parking fee
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
The controversial plan to charge people $5 to park in Howarth Park has been postponed by the Santa Rosa City Council until after the Nov. 2 election.
Sebastian Chevrolet of Forestville rides the trails from Howarth Park three times a week, but will park in nearby neighborhoods if parking fees are introduced.
The council in a 6-1 vote Tuesday opted to delay implementation of the program until after the results of the quarter-cent sales tax measure are known.
“They’re hoping that if that passes they won’t have to implement this program,” Interim City Manager Wayne Goldberg said.
City staff had proposed the parking fee to help bridge a funding gap that threatens to force further reductions in Parks and Recreation Department programs, including the possible closure of the city’s pools and senior center.
The plan was to begin charging people $5 to park all day at Howarth Park, the most popular park in the city, and $2 for two hours. The fees were expected to raise about $500,000 in revenue and fines beginning in early September.
While the state and county charge for parking at neighboring Spring Lake and Annadel parks, charging at Howarth Park would be a first for the city.
Council members had signaled earlier in the meeting during discussion about putting the sales tax measure on the ballot that they were uncomfortable with the timing.
“I don’t want to charge a mother taking two kids out for a stroll five bucks to park when when she’s paying sales tax everywhere else in town,” Vice Mayor Gary Wysocky said.
Some had concerns that voters might feel the city was “nickel and diming them” with the fees, which might erode support for the tax measure, councilman John Sawyer said.
Goldberg said the council also expressed concern about the fairness of the fees, noting that the park is “widely used by families and by people who can’t necessarily afford fees like this.”
Marc Richardson, director of the Recreation and Parks Department, told the council that if the sales tax measure failed, the city might be able to get the parking program running by early January. He estimated the loss of potential revenue from delaying the program at around $160,000, Goldberg said.
The council ultimately opted to pass the ordinance authorizing the program, but to hold off on setting the fees and penalties until after the election, Goldberg said.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Umm … can you clarify who the lone city council member was who voted for the measure? Maybe I’m being obtuse but I’ve yet to figure it out. I suspect whoever it was felt they were being principled, but I would have liked to have seen a name, especially as I probably would have been with the other six, and would like to have heard some reasoning from the one beyond “we must save money.” Well, yes, but on what?
It was an idea worth considering, that may yet be worth reconsidering, but as families’ belts tighten, parks are a nice option for what should be more or less free fun (you don’t have to buy the tickets for the rides). Parks and, for that matter, libraries are basic public utilities for families with young children.
Let us be honest – they know this is a sour idea and the people do not like it. So they want to wait until those up for re-election will not feel the ramifications of their incompetence.
Not really.
“The fees were expected to raise about $500,000 in revenue and fines beginning in early September.” -this is like the cops counting on tickets for $.
this is so important to charge people to park I am there everyday and hundreds of people use the parks for free! I am sooo for charging people to use the park and to keep it clean and open! Its only fair you have to pay to play! Even its just a small fee to keep the Rangers on staff to keep the parks safe! Pass this bilL!
Show me the support for the tax measure, ha, it will never pass, WE are tired of nickle and dimes, heck, your getting fives and tens from us now. Please dont start with your scare tactics we have heard them before.