By Ward Peck

Editor

    Following protracted wrangling over the specific
language, a split Cape Elizabeth Town Council voted to place a
non-binding referendum on the Nov. 7 ballot to gauge public support for
non-resident parking fees at Fort Williams Park.

    The council voted 4-3 to place the following
question on the 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?”

    The final question was significantly different from
the original language approved by the town manager. The original
question would have asked voters, “Would you favor the Town
establishing a pay/display parking program at Fort Williams Park.”

    The changes evolved piecemeal as councilors
attempted to strike a balance between giving voters enough information
to make an informed decision and leaving the question open ended enough
to allow a future town council leeway to establish a fee program
different from the one the council voted down last month.

    A bare majority of the council, Councilors Mary Ann
Lynch, Anne Swift-Kayatta, Cynthia Dill and Paul McKenney, was
satisfied with the final language. Councilors David Backer, Carolyn
Fritz and Michael Mowles voted against the final referendum question.

    That program, which would have set parking fees at
$5 per day or $20 per season for private vehicles and $20 per day or
$100 per season for buses in addition to other rules and stipulations
regarding the fee scheme.

    Councilor Lynch proposed at the outset of the debate
to add a clause to the question to help clarify how the fees would be
used. Her suggestion, “to support park maintenance and improvements,”
was immediately added to the question.

    Several residents spoke against the concept of fees
at Fort Williams in general and the referendum language in particular.

    Fred Prince objected to the non-binding nature of
the referendum, and accused the council of having it both ways,
accepting the public’s opinion if the referendum passed and rejecting
public opinion if it failed.

    Resident Betty Crane noted the language did not
contain the word “fee,” and argued not everyone in town may have been
following the debate as closely as others. She said those people might
not know that the pay/display “program” refers to establishing a fee.

    Fritz proposed an amendment replacing the word “program” with the word “fee.”

    Lynch argued against the change, saying it was
“misleading” because those who will be voting on the referendum will
not be required to pay the fee as they already support the park’s
operation through taxes.

    Dill countered that if the word “fee” is included,
the wording should be explicit that such a fee would not apply to
residents.

    McKenney said he was “bothered by the fact that
misinformation is being printed in the papers” and stated elsewhere
that under pay/display system, residents would no longer pay to
maintain the park.

    “Whether we have the program or not, residents will
continue to pay,” McKenney said. “It is important to not differentiate.
Cape residents will pay. We are not transferring the cost of
[operating] the park from residents to non-residents.”

    Backer brought the council to order reminding them
they were considering the amendment at hand, which would only change
the word “program” to “fee.” When the vote was called, the council
passed the amendment unanimously.

    Following that vote, Swift-Kayatta immediately
proposed a second amendment to include the phrase “for non-residents.”
She said voters need to be aware the fee will not apply to them.

    Fritz objected to the amendment, saying the language was becoming too specific.

    “We are attaching a program that we turned down to this referendum.”

    Several councilors agreed that the council has
already rejected a specific program and including such language was
tantamount to voting twice on the same matter. They argued if the
voters approve the referendum and a future council resurrects a
pay/display system, if will not necessarily be the same program.

    Swift-Kayatta referred the council to the minutes of
the previous meeting and pointed out the council actually did vote to
place the specific proposal. Those minutes state the council voted 5-2
“…the Cape Elizabeth Town Council places the recommendations of the Pay
Display Working Group to the public for a vote at the November 7, 2006
election.

    McKinney suggested he could support Swift-Kayatta’s
amendment if she added the word “help” to underscore the fact that
residents would not stop supporting the park’s operation through their
property taxes. Swift-Kayatta accepted the suggestion and added the
word “help.”

    The council voted 4-3 to accept the amendment to add
the words “for non-residents” and “help.” Backer, Fritz and Mowles
voted against the amendment.

    Following the amendment vote, the council voted to
approve the entire question, “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?” with councilors split 4-3
along the same lines as the previous vote.