Controversy continues swirling around downtown Caldwell parking meters

CALDWELL — Community frustrations came to a head at Tuesday’s Caldwell City Council meeting where council members considered lessening restrictions on downtown parking meters.

The newly installed meters have been a controversial addition to Caldwell’s downtown since enforcement began on May 15. The meters were intended, in part, to keep vehicles moving in and out of parking spots, with concerns that some drivers were hogging spots all day.

Parking meters are enforced on weekdays from 9 a.m.-7 p.m. and on Saturdays from 10 a.m.-5 p.m. The first 15 minutes are free; otherwise parking is $1 an hour, according to the city.

Funds collected will go toward maintaining meters and improving parking downtown according to the city website.

The approval of the meters in December resulted in tensions between city officials, with council members coming to a tie vote. Mayor Jarom Wagoner had to break the tie, deciding in favor of the meters.

“This is not a dictatorship and what happens in the city should not solely be based on the preferences of the mayor and council,” Councilmember Diana Register read aloud at the December meeting.The meters have also caused an uproar in the community, on social media and among downtown businesses.

Residents were upset that they had to pay for parking in the Canyon County city, which has seen its downtown attractions take significant steps forward over the years because of draws such as Indian Creek Plaza, and a bevy of food, beverage and shopping options joining the fray. Community members have also described the meters as difficult to use.

At Tuesday’s meeting, some business owners said the meters detracted customers from coming to their stores now that patrons have to pay to park downtown. Conversely, Wagoner said the city has received a mix of feedback, with some businesses appreciating the meters.

“We will never get 100% unanimous consent, one way or another,” Wagoner said.

Tuesday’s agenda included proposed amendments to parking meter enforcement:

Reduce enforcement times to 9 a.m.-5 p.m.Enforce parking meters only on weekdaysMake the first 30 minutes of parking free

A handful of citizens signed up for public comment. Some felt that the meters simply needed more time to see the full impact.

Others expressed frustrations with a lack of communication from the city and harm caused to businesses.

Marta Rostock, owner of Rostock Furniture, wants to see meters provide at least two hours of free parking. She said regulars are no longer coming in to chat or taking their time to window shop.

“The welcoming comfort the public feels in downtown Caldwell matters,” Rostock said. “When people come to our store, we love to catch up on how they are. That’s the same for many of the businesses here.”

Mony Contreras, store manager of Carniceria Mi Tierra, said the parking meters have deterred customers from coming in. The business sells $3 tacos, so having to pay $1 for parking impacts the total cost for customers.

“People used to come in to eat lunch, eat some tacos, shop around…” Contreras said. “(Now), people are coming in and not eating at the store anymore. They’re taking food to go because people aren’t paying for the meters.”

Using the meters has also been a point of confusion for those parking downtown. Unfortunately, Contreras said they have been unable to help customers.

“We weren’t educated on how to educate our customers,” she said.

During discussion, some council members pointed their critiques toward the city and mayor.

Register said that of 18 businesses she has spoken with, only one had been contacted by the city regarding the meters.

Register felt that the meters were implemented too quickly. When she wanted to extend the timeline on meter discussions prior to their implementation, she said that Wagoner pushed to continue moving forward.

Councilmember Brad Doty echoed similar sentiments. He believed that Wagoner was not keeping the city council informed of plans.

“You have failed to recognize the value of collaboration and teamwork with your council, coming forth with another parking meter change without informing the council is just one example,” Doty said, reading from a prepared statement.

Wagoner said he has been keeping the council up to date as items come up. He also reminded the council that he was not the sole decision-maker on the meters, but that the council voted in favor of implementing them.

Considering the harms to local businesses, Register said she knew of a business that saw a 32% loss in June. Councilmember Chuck Stadick said a business reported revenue loss of $20,000 since the meters have been implemented.

“I have yet to find anyone who is really positive,” Stadick said about community input.

Councilmember Mike Dittenber described some of the ongoing conversations as “pointless banter” with anecdotal evidence being thrown around.

“We don’t have anything after a couple of weeks,” Dittenber said about observable data.

He believed that more time was needed to see the full impact of the meters before making any decisions.

Overall, the council agreed that the bigger picture needed to be considered first before making any decisions on Tuesday’s proposed amendments.

“I am reluctant to continue to make amendment after amendment to what this council decided,” Councilmember Geoff Williams said, referring to the initial approval of the parking meters.

Register believed the proposed amendments were a step in the right direction, but she didn’t feel it was enough.

“What is suggested tonight is a Band-aid and in my opinion, it looks like a PR attempt. It is not enough nor is it truly what the community is asking for,” Register said, reading from a prewritten statement.

Williams acknowledged that the council could never please everybody, but said the litany of proposed ideas needed to be thought out before implementation. While Williams originally voted against implementing the meters, now that they’re here, he doesn’t necessarily want to just rip them out after the city has invested money.

The council moved to postpone the vote on the amendments for a later date. Council members could bring other proposed changes to table at the next council meeting on Aug. 5.