City advances plan to reconstruct downtown parking lot

By Zach Hagadone
Reader Staff

Sandpoint Mayor Jeremy Grimm cast a tiebreaking vote at the Feb. 19 meeting of the Sandpoint City Council, advancing the preliminary design for a reconstructed downtown parking lot — provided it takes into consideration the recommendations of the city’s Urban Forestry Commission.

The repaving and rehabilitation of the city-owned lot between Oak and Church streets has been budgeted by the Sandpoint Urban Renewal Agency since 2014, but finally gained traction this year with a plan to get the work completed before Lost in the ’50s in May, which traditionally marks the beginning of Sandpoint’s busiest season.

Public Works Director Holly Ellis said “time is of the essence,” and with the preliminary plan in place, the city is “no longer kicking the can.”

Attending remotely, Grimm described the so-called “city lot” as a “welcome gateway/entrance mat to all our visitors.”

“It reflects tremendously on the first impression someone has of our community,” he added. “I’ve been a huge proponent of this project since 2014 [when he made the motion to fund the project while serving on the SURA board] and I’m thrilled it’s before you.”

According to the Feb. 19 presentation, the fiscal year 2025 budget includes $150,000 for the project, though with a total cost estimate of $400,000, funded by SURA.

An overhead view of the proposed new city parking lot in Sandpoint. Courtesy image

Councilor Joel Aispuro, whose popular restaurant is across from the parking lot on Church St., later in the meeting said, “Although I think redoing the parking lot is a really good idea, I personally don’t think Sandpoint has a problem with people not wanting to come here because of an ugly parking lot. I see it everyday.”

However, Aispuro joined Councilor Justin Dick and acting-Council President Deb Ruehle in voting for the design. 

Councilors Pam Duquette, Rick Howarth and Kyle Schreiber voted “nay,” stating that the city was moving too fast with finalizing the design and advertising it for bid before addressing several key issues: specifically the elimination of the north and south entrances to the lot  in favor of a single ingress/egress on Third Avenue, and the removal of mature shade trees on the property.

Paige Belfry, a member of the city’s tree commission and a certified arborist testified that the current plan was “incomplete,” needing to address maintaining as many trees as possible and including permeable pavement options and larger tree wells.

“I’m here to tell you that trees are not easy to replace. … [M]ost people don’t understand that young, unestablished urban trees almost never thrive and many have to be replaced again and again and again, which starts that clock over,” she said, going on to cite the ecological, physical and mental benefits of mature trees in urban areas. 

“It would be a misstep to rush an incomplete approval tonight, as it has no professional input from a credentialed arborist and it can be improved,” Belfry later added.

The mayor and council agreed that the plan should go to the Urban Forestry Commission before proceeding. But Grimm said that while the commission’s input would be incorporated into the design and the council would be briefed on the final version, it likely wouldn’t appear in a meeting before going out to bid.

Both City Forester Eric Bush and Civil Engineer Brandon Staglund warned the council that there would be tradeoffs with retaining the existing trees, including with the sizes and number of the parking spaces, turning movements around the lot, and costs associated with protecting the roots and asphalt damage from tree growth.

“I just think we’re always going to have that discussion of progress versus preservation,” Duquette said.

The lot is envisioned to include about 128 spaces (including compact and ADA), as well as increased stall size and realignment, improved lighting, and infrastructure for future paid parking technology and EV charging stations.

Howarth raised concerns about eliminating the access points on the north and south ends of the lot — feeding into Oak and Church, respectively — in favor of a single entry/exit point on Third.  

Specifically, he worried about motorists having to circle multiple times through the lot in search of an open spot, calling it “highly inefficient.” Schreiber also pointed to possible congestion on Third and throughout the lot if drivers have difficulty with the paid parking system, and whether it was adequate access for emergency services.

Grimm argued that the north-south entrance alignment is a “worst-case scenario,” particularly on the north side, with vehicles crossing two dedicated bike lanes and a sidewalk into free-flowing traffic on Oak ending with a controlled stop on Oak and Third.

“It’s just a recipe for an accident; there’s just too many things going on,” he said.

While recognizing that certain aspects of the plan weren’t “ideal,” Grimm said, “I was looking for a quick, simple project to start to make our community look nicer and show that we care about our infrastructure, so I’m not of the mindset of letting perfection be the enemy of the good. I’m really looking at what we can do that’s practical that reflects our investment in our public spaces and can be accomplished.”

The plan will now be presented to the Urban Forestry Commission, downtown businesses and SURA at its March meeting. Also in March, the city plans to advertise for bids, with construction planned for about three weeks from April to May, with completion prior to Lost in the ’50s, which this year is scheduled for May 15-17.