By James Windell
Who starts a program without figuring out how to pay for it?
That was a question raised by more than one South Haven resident after the City Council approved starting a lifeguard program and the announcement that a Chief Lifeguard had been hired.
The question of how the lifeguard program would be funded was a main item on the agenda of the City Council’s Committee of the Whole (COW) at their meeting on March 16, 2026.
As the discussion began, the COW was joined via phone by a consulting partner, Tom Neff of Traffic and Safety Solutions. The first option for funding of the lifeguard program was related to parking and Neff said that “80% occupancy” was cited as a standard target. “Eighty percent occupancy,” he said, “was high enough to avoid being totally full, while ensuring drivers can still reliably find a space.”
One proposal that was discussed was for a beach parking fee change for daily and weekly parking. The existing 3-year annual permit is not being changed this year. That is, the annual permit will be sold at $80, with one year remaining on the current cycle. The staff stated that nearby communities, such as Muskegon, St. Joseph, and New Buffalo, had higher parking rates and the current local rates and fines in South Haven are out of step.
Neff explained that the revenue goal is to fund beach operations, set aside capital for improvements, and cover a lifeguard program. Statistics were cited showing that in 2024 there were 47,440 daily passes purchased at $10 each. This generated $474,400 in parking fee revenue. However, the lifeguard program is likely to cost about $600,000 for the first year.
The funding of the lifeguard program seemed to come down to two options. The first option would be to charge $3 an hour for parking. Assuming 505 spaces, 9 hours per day for 123 days, and 80% utilization, the estimated revenue would be $1,341,684. The second option would be charging $2 an hour for parking but extending the paid parking hours to 8:00 pm (rather than the current 6:00 pm), which is estimated to raise $1,093,000 in revenue.
Also, City Council members and staff discussed increasing parking fines from the current $20 to about $45. Some members commented that a $20 fine is not a deterrent and that some visitors reportedly find it easier to park illegally and just pay the fine. The Council was reminded by staff that fines should primarily drive compliance rather than act as a revenue tool.
Various future directions were discussed, but City staff requested guidance in terms of adding stronger tools in an ordinance (for example, towing authority or other consequences) so that ticket nonpayment has “bite.”
City Council members seemed to lean toward keeping hours the same and adopting the $3 an hour parking option without changing the hours for paid parking. Staff pointed out that any changes will require bringing back a parking resolution for City Council action.
