By Ward Peck

Editor



Voters in Cape Elizabeth will likely have a say in November whether to impose parking fees at Fort Williams.



The town council voted to place the question on the fall ballot after
failing to approve the fees themselves by a vote of 4-3 following a
lively and at times hostile public hearing.



Roughly 30 members of the public spoke out against the so-called
“Pay/Display” parking system in which non-residents would be required
to purchase a $5 a day parking voucher. Visitors could also purchase
$20 season passes. Fees for commercial buses and trolleys would pay $20
per day or $100 per season.



No members of the public spoke in favor of imposing the fees.



Those who did speak gave a number of different reasons why Fort
Williams should remain free and open to all. Some residents criticized
the town for not finding other ways to finance needed maintenance and
upkeep.



Many residents seized upon the cost of maintaining the Park, estimated
to cost the average Cape Elizabeth homeowner $50 in property taxes, as
appropriate and manageable.



“$50 per household is money well spent,” said Fred Prince.



In light of what those residents considered a modest surcharge to
operate the park, several feared a loss of prestige and goodwill if the
town began charging non-residents to use the park.



“The seal of the town is the (Two Lights) lighthouse. I hope we don’t
have to paint a dollar sign over it,” said Brad Smith, a volunteer at
the lighthouse museum who said visitors often balk at the museum’s $2
entrance fee.



Resident Bob Trippler spoke of “unintended consequences,” if the system
is imposed, including the added cost of the system, more wage expenses,
and frequent upgrades for the system. Several other residents picked up
on the theme of unintended consequences. Laurie Jensen wondered if
visitors paying the fee would expect a higher level of service
including fixed bathrooms and trashcans and believes the park would
suffer, as in-state non-residents would no longer frequent the park to
the same degree.



Several residents supported the idea of charging commercial users of
the park such as tour bus operators; while others felt fees to rent
portions of the park should be increased. Someone suggested wedding
parties be required to pay a user fee and still others suggested the
gift shop prices were too low.



Following the public comments, members of the council offered their own perspective.



Council Chair David Backer recalled the “contentious budget debate,”
several months earlier when many members of the public appealed to the
council to institute a user fee at Fort Williams to alleviate budget
constraints. But he said the outpouring of support for keeping the park
free, which he called “heartwarming, persuaded him He noted the council
had received “one or two” emails in support of a parking fee.



Councilor Paul McKenney pointed out the $50 in property taxes used for
the park only covers the minimum amount needed to keep the park open.
He said he personally feels people who use something should be required
to contribute toward it. “But given the feelings and emotions…expressed
by a cross-section of people, it would be inappropriate to support this
fee structure.”



Councilor Swift-Kayatta picked up on McKenney’s observation that the
park’s needs are greater than what the operating budget allows.



“Fort Williams is a jewel, but it has a lot of needs,” Swift-Kayatta
said. She mentioned several of those needs, including the deteriorating
Goddard Mansion, bleachers and stone walls in the park, that she said
would require hundreds of thousands of dollars over the current
$125,000 operating budget.



“The fort is not free,” Swift-Kayatta said. “The citizens of Cape are
the minority of users but pay 100 percent of the costs. The majority of
users pay nothing. This is about who will pay. We can’t stop
maintaining it.”

Swift-Kayatta said she has heard from many residents in favor of the
fees, although she acknowledged they apparently did not attend the
meeting. She also referenced a poll that showed a majority of people in
the state would pay to use the park.



Councilor Mary Ann Lynch, who has been viewed as the driving force
behind the fee initiative also noted the near-term costs facing the
park.

“It will cost $400,000 to maintain Goddard Mansion as a ruin,” she
said. "Batteries are crumbling. We have needs with costs that have not
even been assessed.”



Lynch called the port-o-potties in the park “embarrassing,” and said proper bathrooms need to be installed.



“We need to do a better job maintaining the park,” Lynch said.

Councilor Cynthia Dill also expressed support for the proposed fee structure.



“We have a responsibility as public officials,” Dill said. “During the
school budget debate, a parade of people begged us to increase money
for the school.”



Dill said there were several good ideas for instituting fees at Fort
Williams, and the pay/ display proposal was one of them. She said the
system would give the town more data regarding who uses the park, which
will help with future decisions. During Dill’s comments several members
of the public booed and heckled the council.



Councilor Carolyn Fritz, who has been consistent in her opposition to
any fee at the park, said members of the public had already expressed
her reasons for voting against the proposal.



Councilor Michael Mowles, maintained his position on the matter has been consistent, saying he will vote against the proposal.



Following the proposals defeat, the council immediately picked up on a
suggestion earlier in the evening that the matter be voted on by the
public. After determining there was still enough time to place the
question on the ballot, the council debated the merits of doing so. The
council voted 5-2 (Mowles and Fritz against) to place the item on the
November 7 ballot. However, the placement of the referendum question on
the ballot is not assured.



The council will vote again at its Sept. 11 meeting on the exact
language. If a majority of councilors cannot agree on that language,
the question will likely not appear on the ballot.