Stephen Vance, Staff
In a 4-3 vote, Meaford council narrowly defeated a proposal to implement an overnight paid parking system that would have required downtown residents who don’t have parking spots for their vehicles to pay a $30 per month (or $275 annual) fee to park in municipal parking lots and on street spaces. And while council voted against the proposal at their August 8 meeting, the issue will be before council again at their September 12 meeting for a final vote.
“This report recommends implementing an overnight parking pass for vehicles that are currently parking without charge at municipal parking lots, such as Meaford Hall and behind the main administration building on Berry Street, and for permitted on-street parking greater than six consecutive hours,” read a report to council that was presented at the August 8 meeting. “A pass system would ensure risk and liabilities are addressed, that vehicles are moved when required (for snow removal or special events), and payment is received for personal use parking at municipal facilities.”
Council heard that tenants of apartments above downtown businesses along Sykes Street often don’t have space for parking included in their rental agreement, and as a result those residents have traditionally parked their vehicles in Market Square or on the street. If implemented, the plan could also impact drivers who don’t live in downtown apartments; for example, if a patron of a downtown restaurant determined they had consumed too much alcohol and opted to take a taxi home, without a monthly parking permit they could find their car towed when they returned to pick it up.
The proposal put before council sought to recover some of the costs associated with the provision of those parking spaces, such as snow removal, though the report to council indicated that the expected revenue generation from the plan would be just $3,000 to $5,000 annually.
The report noted that the city of Owen Sound has a similar parking pass program that allows parking in any municipal lot for a $45 per month fee.
The proposal sparked some lively debate around the council table.
“I will give you a scenario of being a tenant in an apartment on the main street, and I have a car. And my landlord doesn’t have a parking spot for me. A pretty common scenario,” said Councillor Tony Bell. “So this tenant who lives in that apartment is now looking at as a best financial option, $275 a year for all day parking?”
Municipal Clerk and Director of Legislative Services Rob Tremblay suggested that the proposed fee could be paid by the tenant or the landlord.
“In the grand scheme of things, a $30 monthly charge to provide that parking could be accommodated either by the tenant or the (property) owner,” said Tremblay. “Right now, we’re (the municipality) accepting all the liability and paying for the maintenance of those facilities and the users, who are using it for their own personal use are not bearing any of the costs or liabilities associated with it.”
Deputy Mayor Harley Greenfield was not convinced that the proposed parking plan was in the best interests of the tenants.
“We’re dealing with a selective few here. First of all, it’s not their (the tenants) fault that their landlords don’t have parking spaces for them, but let’s just look at where they live, and what they have to put up with,” suggested Greenfield. “Now if you live on Alberry Court, or Centennial Crescent, or Fairway Avenue, it’s not very likely that in the middle of the night you’re going to be woken up by a $200,000 Kenworth pulling a 53 foot trailer through the main street, that’s Highway 26. You’re not likely going to three or four times through the winter be disturbed by snow removal crews at two or three in the morning. You’re not likely going to be disturbed at 5:30 in the morning by the street sweeper. And you’re not likely going to be disturbed by an altercation outside the Leeky at 11:30 at night. What I am saying basically is, these people need a break, and charging them $275 per year – how can we do that?”
Municipal Treasurer Darcy Chapman told council that there are costs associated with parking, and someone has to pay.
“At the end of the day, what we need to recognize is that if it’s a new development that comes into town, we are requiring them to provide one and a half parking spaces (per unit). For the big development downtown right now, that means that he has go down (underground) at a substantial cost to get that parking that he needs. On top of that, any new development has to pay, as part of their development charge, parking, so that we as a municipality can afford to enhance our parking needs as the community grows, and that cost is estimated at $9,800 per parking spot,” Chapman told council. “This (parking) is not a free service.”
Chapman suggested that if a pay-for-parking system was implemented, landlords and tenants can sort out who pays amongst themselves, “not all taxpayers to subsidize those 10 or 15 spots.” He also made note of the issues caused by vehicles parked downtown overnight for snow removal crews in the winter.
Councillor Shirley Keaveney was concerned that the $30 per month fee was too high.
“Maybe $30 per month is too much to start with until we give tenants an opportunity to negotiate with their landlords,” suggested Keaveney. “I understand the reasoning for charging something, but maybe we can look at the amount.”
Council ultimately voted against the proposal in a narrow 4-3 vote, however the issue will come before council again at their September 12 meeting for a final vote, and Deputy Mayor Harley Greenfield, who was one of the councillors who voted against the proposal, has already noted that he will not be in attendance at the September 12 meeting, so the measure could still be approved by council.
