Paid parking is a user levy. Parking fees at city facilities and parks are regressive. Lower income earners pay a larger share of their income for user fees. This widens the gap between those in our larger community who use our common facilities and can afford the parking fees and those who use our common facilities but can’t afford a parking fee.

The goal of any city revenue tool needs to be an equitable outcome, resident or non-resident. This proposal for further study of non-resident paid parking is not equitable.

We recently spent a significant amount of time looking at the need and the impact of parking fees in the city. We removed parking fees for certain city functions and locations, including downtown.

We have invested significant dollars to support growth in our city and we have recently completed a strategic plan refresh that includes an environmental goal statement. The plan does not support an inclusive, welcoming and equitable city.

Timing is everything I do not believe that the timing of this proposal is appropriate the best time to consider user fees is where the initial investment is made or when something has changed that elevates the importance and the significant necessity of increased investment. This is better done during our annual budget deliberations. A user fee question  to change or not to change might be asked for each capital asset or program with your core or non-core.

Again timing is everything. The return of the report to counsel in the fall of 2022 is not appropriate. The proposal for further study spends more on research without looking closely at underlying principles, and places the decision based on that research in the final days of the term of this council and during an election campaign, creating an artificial issue for a lame duck counsel without further serious discussion of the underlying principles and reasons for change.

So before we consider further study, before considering a user levy For parking in our city parks or any other facilities before we ask anyone with her resident or nonresident to dig into their pockets to pay for city services which enhance the well-being of all we need to examine the underlying respond reasons for the proposal and even more examine closely our current city business practices, operations and efficiencies.

Before we look out we need to look in.

I will not be supporting this motion for further study.