We, the undersigned residents and concerned individuals, oppose the proposed E-meter Parking (ParkMobile) system and associated parking charges for the Fair. We believe this proposal unfairly burdens residents and fails to consider the full impact on our community.

1. Unclear Purpose and Financial Justification
The proposed revenue from parking charges ($100,000–$240,000) lacks sufficient backing and clarity. The city has not provided enough evidence that this system will effectively meet financial needs. We call for full transparency and clearer financial justification.

2. Financial Burden on Residents
The $25 daily parking charge (totaling $300) for 12 days is a significant financial strain for those who rely on street parking for caregiving, essential services, and daily needs. We oppose this charge, which unfairly impacts residents. (Even with an option of more than one pass per household, as is now being discussed as an option - residents would still have to apply if more than one is needed)

3. Inaccessibility for Low-Income Residents
Charging $25 a day for parking places an undue burden on low- and middle-income Fair goers, and alternatives like buses or rideshares aren’t viable for everyone, especially those with mobility, health, or financial challenges. As a community committed to being welcoming and inclusive, we cannot support a proposal that disproportionately excludes vulnerable individuals. True inclusivity means ensuring all residents, regardless of income, can participate in the Fair.

4. Risks to the City and Community
There are risks to the city if parking spaces are not filled or if issues arise with the ParkMobile system. These risks have not been fully addressed, and we believe they need careful consideration before proceeding.

5. Lack of Transparency and Public Engagement
The public engagement process has been insufficient, with limited communication and a lack of meaningful dialogue. Despite task force meetings being held since September 2024, residents were largely unaware of the proposal until the Spring 2025 Newsletter, and the public hearing did not provide enough opportunity for constructive input. We demand more transparent processes and genuine community involvement.

6. Possible Negative Impact on Property Values and Aesthetics
Permanent parking posts in residential lawns could negatively affect property values and the aesthetic integrity of our neighborhoods. The introduction of ParkMobile in residential areas sets an undesirable precedent for future commercialization. At the public hearing on Wed March 26th, we were told they are “trying” to make the signs temporary, but the posts might have to be permanent.

Conclusion: We urge the city to reconsider the implementation of E-meter Parking and the proposed parking charges. This policy unfairly burdens residents, is exclusive of low and mid-income Fair goers, and fails to adequately consider the impact on our community. We call for more accessible, fair, and transparent solutions that prioritize the needs of all.