09/12/06
Councilors agree to language
of Fort Williams parking fee referendum
By a 4-3 vote Sept. 11, Town councilors agreed to language of a
non-binding referendum question concerning fees at Fort Williams Park.
Councilors approved the following question for the Nov. 7 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?"
Councilors voted last month to put such a question to referendum after a
failing to approve a specific proposal for a pay/display system of collecting
fees for non-residents to park at Fort Williams. The exact language of the
referendum, however, was left to this month's meeting.
The pay/display proposal, drafted by a working group of citizens, Town
councilors, and members of the Fort Williams Advisory Commission, would have
established a system of kiosks within the park where visitors could use a
credit card or some other form of payment to purchase a parking sticker.
The proposal established a fee schedule of $5 per day, or $25 for a seasonal
pass; and $20 a day or $100 per season for buses or trolleys. Under that
proposal, Cape Elizabeth residents displaying a Recycling Center car decal
would not be charged for parking.
The referendum question reflects the proposal of the working group, but is
not specific to the proposal. "It's exactly what the question is, and that's
it," said Town Manager Michael McGovern in a telephone interview after the
Sept. 11 meeting.
How closely the referendum should be tied to the specific proposal, however,
was debated at length at the meeting Sept. 11.
One councilor, Cynthia Dill, said she believed the text of the proposal itself
should be added to the referendum. Councilor Anne Swift-Kayatta, who suggested
the referendum at last month's meeting, said the council vote last month
was to place the recommendations of the Pay Display Working Group to the
public for a vote. "I don't agree that we want to make this incredibly vague,"
she said.
Other councilors, however, said they understood the referendum as a chance
to see if the public at large was interested in the pay/display concept for
Fort Williams. "I didn't realize the precise (motion) language was like that,"
said Councilor Paul McKenney. "I don't think that was our intent."
Council Chairman David Backer said that the wording of the referendum question,
as drafted by the Town's attorney, was intentionally broad and vague, to
give the council the flexibility to modify the proposal in a way that's
appropriate.
The wording originally put forth to Town attorney Thomas Leahy used the word
"program" in place of "fee" and did not include the reference to non-residents,
or that the fees would go toward park maintenance and improvements.
Citizens attending the Sept. 11 meeting urged the council to include the
word "fee" in the referendum question.
"It's a fee. Let's face it. Either you are for fees or against them," said
Starboard Drive resident Betty Crane.
None of the five citizens who spoke Sept. 11 supported the wording or putting
the question to referendum, particularly after the overwhelming public sentiment
against fees at Fort Williams, both recently and historically.
Two Lights Road resident Henry Berry, who served on the first Town Council
in 1967 and again in the 1990s, added, "I think that a referendum is useless
because it's not binding."
Attorney Leahy, in a memo to the Town Council, said that because the Town
Charter does not specifically provide for a referendum of this type, courts
have held that such a referendum be "advisory."
But councilors who supported the referendum said they saw benefits, and most
said they individually would respect the outcome of the vote. "If the majority
of Cape Elizabeth residents say 'we don't want a fee,' then we won't have
a fee," said McKenney. "If they say they want a fee, then I will support
that as well," McKenney said.
Voting to place the referendum on the ballot were Councilors Mary Ann Lynch,
Dill, McKenney and Swift-Kayatta. Opposing the referendum were Councilors
Michael Mowles, Carol Fritz and Backer.
Of those supporting the referendum question, Dill voiced the greatest number
of reasons. "I think it's a good exercise in democracy," she said. Although
28 citizens came out to speak against the pay/display system last month,
she said, an equal number came out during school-budget deliberations in
favor of fees at Fort Williams. A referendum will better show "the big picture",
and will also give voters a chance to juxtapose their beliefs about fees
at Fort Williams with the TABOR government spending-limit referendum that
will also be on the Nov. 7 ballot. "It's my belief that we will get a better
informed citizenry if people have to, on the one hand, study what TABOR will
do, and on the other hand make a commitment to supporting the maintenance
and improvements of the park through taxation," Dill said.
Although the pay/display fee would apply to non-residents, Cape Elizabeth
residents would still support Fort Williams through taxes.
The referendum was also seen by some councilors as a way to bring closure
to an issue that Cape Elizabeth residents are passionate about. "In my mind,
the referendum is important in order to settle the issue," said McKenney.
Previous stories:
Related links:
|
