Gardens car parking charge fails to take root
A proposal to charge for car parking at Hamilton Gardens has failed to win public backing.
Hamilton city councillors will meet tomorrow for deliberations on the council’s draft long-term plan ahead of its adoption in June.
The council plans to spend
$3.7 billion over the next 10 years on the ‘‘everyday costs’’ of running the city, as well as $2.5b on capital projects. It’s proposing an average rates increase of 8.9 per cent to existing ratepayers in the
2021/22 financial year.
But public feedback on its draft long-term plan (LTP) could prompt a major rethink on several key proposals – including a pitch to introduce paid parking at the city’s showpiece, Hamilton Gardens.
The council received 5692 submissions on its draft plan, a figure one staff report says reflects an ‘‘unprecedented level of response from the community’’.
More than 4300 submissions were made on the council’s proposal to charge visitors $5 to park at the Hamilton Gardens, with an overwhelming 64 per cent (3171 submissions) opposing the idea.
Those against the idea of paid parking say it could discourage people from visiting the public gardens. There is also the view the site should be free to visit for Hamilton residents.
Despite Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, more than 371,000 people visited the attraction’s closed gardens in 2020.
Charging cars $5 and tour buses $20 per visit is predicted to bring in about $500,000 a year in revenue. Half of this revenue
($250,000) would be used to fund new services and facilities at the gardens.
Another council idea that failed to win public backing is a proposal to introduce paid parking around the fringe of the central city. Council staff have identified 2000 parking spaces that could be part of the new regime, with charges ranging from $5 to
$8 a day.
The proposal is expected to generate $1.6 million in revenue, but was opposed by 63 per cent of submitters to the draft LTP.
Those who voiced opposition to the idea say the scheme could impact low-income city workers and deter people from visiting the central city. The council has indicated it will use the revenue to invest in public transport and ‘‘mode-shift initiatives’’.
The public’s wish for council to pull back on spending is reflected in feedback on several proposals.
Only 14 per cent (633 submitters) favour a proposal to spend $26m on constructing a new indoor leisure pool at Waterworld. Instead, 63 per cent
(2774 submitters) support the less expensive idea of a $6m seasonal dome being built over the venue’s outdoor pool.
Hamilton City Council is also proposing to invest $11m towards a new $28m walking and cycling bridge across the Waikato River. Rotary Hamilton and Momentum Waikato have partnered up to lead the project. Sixty-four per cent of submitters support the council contributing $11m towards the project, while only 13 per cent want ratepayers to chip in $13m.
A proposal to build a second boat jetty, located next to the Hamilton Gardens, is favoured by a majority of submitters (53 per cent) but only if the investment is put off until 2026-28. Only 24 per cent of submitters want the project to go ahead earlier.
Similarly, 49 per cent of submitters favour a proposal to spend $29m on restoring and maintaining the city’s gullies, on the proviso that the bulk of that money is spent in the last five years of the council’s 10-year budget cycle. Only 28 per cent favour most of the $29m being spent in the first five years of the LTP.