City puts pause on paid downtown parking program to address ordinance changes

By Zach Hagadone
Reader Staff

After nearly a month of community furor surrounding the city of Sandpoint’s rollout of a paid parking program in the downtown core and select publicly-owned parking lots on July 1, the on-street kiosks installed in the downtown core from First to Third avenues, and portions of Cedar Street, have been shut off and covered with trash bags. 

They’ll remain that way until the City Council’s regular Wednesday, Aug. 5 meeting, when officials are set to address revamping parts of Sandpoint’s parking code to bring it into alignment with the new policy. It remains to be seen whether motorists will continue to be required to log in at a kiosk for two hours of free parking, which can then be reupped for $4 per additional hour.

Councilors voted 5-1 (with Council President Deb Ruehle dissenting) to direct staff to return in August with a proposed, updated parking ordinance that only requires payment by permit or hourly in the city-owned lots — which include the City Lot at Third Avenue and Church Street; City Beach; Jeff Jones Square; and waterfront locations on Bridge Street, the Dock Street Marina and Pend d’Oreille Bay Trail. It would also open the way for revisiting the overall parking management plan, which council adopted in June 2025.

“So we have a couple of weeks of chilling out, build a little bit of trust with some people in the community, educating … [and] table to bring back next meeting code that would only apply to the city parking lots and then bring back, concurrently, the parking management plan,” said Councilor Joel Aispuro, summarizing the motion approved on July 15.

The introduction of the paid parking program has been controversial, to say the least, with Sandpoint Planning and Community Development Director Jason Welker taking time at the July 15 meeting to offer a mea culpa for the angst felt by many community members over the new system.

“As the project manager charged with implementing the city’s adopted parking management plan, I could have done better,” he said, adding that clear information about the two-hour free parking zone should have been more readily available, as well as rules surrounding the city and county resident parking permits, boat launch permits, the number of permits a household could purchase, what types of information are gathered and how, as well as how the different types of permits work with parking and boat launching.

“The absence of clear, comprehensive information created unnecessary confusion. That confusion became frustration and that frustration was amplified through social media and word of mouth,” Welker said. 

He added that technical glitches on the day of the rollout exacerbated that frustration, including instances when kiosks defaulted to an all-day paid parking option, rather than the two-free-hour session, several kiosks that lost power and went out of service, and others that failed to communicate with one another to log an existing parking session.

“Those problems have been corrected, but that does not erase the experience of the people who encountered them. To someone standing at a kiosk trying to understand a new system, a temporary technical error does not feel temporary. It feels like the program does not work,” he said.

“I accept responsibility for these implementation shortcomings,” Welker continued. “I was responsible for coordinating this rollout and the rollout should have been clearer, more thoughtfully tested and better communicated. Accountability however also requires accuracy. It is fair to criticize the implementation. It is fair to oppose the policy. It is fair to believe that fees are too high, the system is too complicated or that the city should take a different approach. It is not accurate to describe this program as corruption, theft, covert surveillance or the product of a backroom arrangement.”

In that statement, Welker alluded to a suite of allegations made by some community members — including both county and city residents — that the parking policy was improperly implemented, extending even to the ordinance level.

According to those charges, Sandpoint should have amended its parking ordinance to align with the policy before it went online in early July and, because it wasn’t, the current policy is unlawful.

Grimm told the Reader in a phone interview that Chapter 6-1-4-2 of City Code gives the city the power to erect signage related to parking regulations and requires motor vehicle owners to comply with them. In addition, Chapter 6-2-11 establishes that fees for parking over set time limits are established by resolution and adopted by the City Council.

“The final step is just bringing the code into alignment with the launch of the plan, and that’s what we’re attempting to do during this period, which is to clarify which portions of the code apply here and then delete and strike portions that are in conflict,” Grimm said.  

Asked why the ordinance wasn’t reviewed at any point over the past 12 months, since the parking management plan was adopted, Grimm said, “Well, it is being looked at. It has been looked at during this soft launch period and I would contend that it’s going to be addressed and implemented before we actually start putting penalties and enforcement in. 

“I’d say that the timing, although it could have preempted all this, is still flowing,” he added.

Councilor Pam Duquette, who has been among the skeptics of the paid parking program, told the Reader that “the order [of the policy adoption and ordinance review] was correct but the timing was unfortunate. I wish we had — before installing the kiosks — amended the code.”

Fonda Jovick, who serves as the city attorney as a contractor from Coeur d’Alene-based Lake City Law, said at the July 15 meeting that nothing inappropriate had occurred with the adoption of the plan, implementation of the policy and current updating of the ordinance. However, asked for follow-up by the Reader, she wrote in an email that “our communications with our client, including our legal analysis, is protected communication/advice. Therefore, I must respond, ‘no comment,’ to your inquiry.”

Councilor Kyle Schreiber, who has maintained vocal criticism of the paid parking program for more than a year, also told the Reader that between City Code 6-1-4-2 and 6-2-11, Sandpoint was within its rights to implement paid parking, but “there’s obviously wording in that ordinance that needs to be updated.”

“It’s not a legal thing as much as just a continuity thing,” he added. “It refers to the downtown lot as ‘the free lot,’ and if we’re going to charge there anymore, we probably shouldn’t call it a free lot anymore.” 

That said, Schreiber agreed that the program launch was rocky, and is a leading voice on the council for eliminating the two-hour kiosks altogether and limiting paid parking to the lots.

“Let’s just say that the rollout of this paid parking program left so much to be desired, and an ounce of prevention would have saved us a pound of cure on this one,” he said.

Go to sandpointidaho.gov and click on “Current News” or the red banner at the top of the page that reads “City of Sandpoint Updates Downtown Parking Following City Council Meeting” for more detail on specific parking rules, requirements and permits.