Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/1992, C-17 - PARKING PROGRAM - SUPPLEMENTAL FEES ������INI�IYIIIII��I jllllllll city 1" MEETING DATE: o C� Q S� -�(�S �B�Sp� a temper 1, 1992 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: _ FROM: Wayne A. Peterson, Acting Public Works Director ,( SUBJECT: Parking Program - Supplemental Fees CAO RECOMMENDATION: Defer Implementation of Supplemental Fee Program To a Future Date When Related Projects and Appropriate Funding has been Identified DISCUSSION: The Parking Management Program adopted in 1987 included a policy which called for the establishment of a supplemental fee program. The supplemental fee program was to be a surcharge on the Business Tax in the Business Improvement Area. This revenue was a part of a multifaceted parking revenue program, designed to keep the parking program solvent and to fund future expansion. The idea was that all those benefiting from parking should pay a responsible share of the cost. The person parking downtown paid the parking meter/structure fee and the developer paid an in-lieu fee. The supplemental fee was to be the merchant' s share. The program developed by BIA and staff was to be presented to the Council by April 1988. Implementation of the fee was delayed pending a major revision of the Business Tax, which finally occurred on October 29, 1991. The 1990 Parking Management Plan had a similar policy. This policy said, "The City will seek financial support of a parking program from merchants and business owners. " This was a two-part program. The Action and Timeline portion of the plan had the Parking in-lieu fee program (the first part) , continuing and being reviewed by July 1, 1990 to assure that the fee reflected current construction costs. The fee was reviewed at that time and staff recommended the fee be increased to $6, 000. The BIA did not support the increase and no change was made. The second part of the Action plan was to implement a supplemental fee program upon completion of the Business Tax restructuring by July 1, 1991. The City Parking Management Committee discussed this issue on July 18, 1990 and decided that, before making decisions on in-lieu or — supplemental fees, they should look into developing an equitable assessment district. Upon adoption of the revised Business Tax ordinance in October of 1991, staff again discussed the supplemental fee concept with the BIA. At their Board Meeting March 10, 1992 they referred the issue to a subcommittee. The committee has never met. In the minutes of the Parking Management Committee dated March 27, 1991, the BIA Board adopted a motion which said that it was their intention to contribute a minimum of $73 , 000 through the business tax process, and that the money was to be earmarked for expansion purposes. �����►n►i►lvillllllllll► II��II city of San ' 's OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Supplemental Fees Page Two Currently the City is processing the Downtown Physical Concept Plan. This document needs to be reviewed and adopted before any significant I downtown parking land acquisition or construction is again pursued. The proposed plan does include recommendations for sites that should be considered for new parking. The timing of the projects should be based upon need, availability of the sites, and an improvement in the economy. The current fiscal uncertainties for government and the difficult economy for the business community makes an expansion of parking difficult to forecast. When the BIA wishes the City to begin a parking expansion I program, that is compatible with the adopted plan, they should be expected to forward a proposal that they support for raising the money necessary to pay for the expansion. City staff will be available to discuss concepts with the BIA whenever they wish to discuss them. i Recently the City/BIA/County have been discussing parking concerns that need to be addressed if the County continues to expand in the central business district. One concept that is being considered to help meet that need is a parking structure built in conjunction with the Transit Multimodal Project. Funds to support the debt service for such a project have not been identified. The supplemental fee may be a part of a package to support parking expansion to encourage the county to build in the downtown. Based upon historical experience, the inclusion of supplemental fees as a revenue source for any government promoted parking project rather unlikely. The two recent garages were intended to have received some support from the business community, but when the time to approve the new funding source came, the business community had developed reasons why their financial support was not forthcoming. FISCAL IMPACT: I Existing parking revenues are adequate to support current operating programs and debt service requirements. However, as reflected in the updated 1990 Parking Management Plan, additional sources of funding such as the supplemental fee program will be necessary in order to finance any major capital programs, such as land acquisition or parking structure construction. Currently, no significant capital programs have been approved by Council, and accordingly there is no pressing need for the — supplemental .fee program. However, failure to put this program in place at this time will limit our ability in the future to expedite the implementation of any projects that may be approved, and timely "opportunities buying" may be precluded. CAO COMMENTS: It is with great reluctance that I presently recommend a deferral of a downtown merchant Supplemental Fee Program. This program, if implemented, would provide that downtown merchants pay part of the capital funding costs for future acquisition and development of the downtown parking facilities. I do so only because it is .now obvious that continuing present discussions to that end will not be productive. Ilililllnlll�i������lll�ll `I`IIII CILy O� Sd11 AS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Supplemental Fees Page Three i The downtown parking system is almost-exclusively a user-supported system, with the parkers paying the fees necessary to support the system. Having participated in numerous discussions, probably involving hundreds of hours, with BIA representatives/downtown merchants, I am convinced that a full, properly planned downtown parking system, such as that envisioned by the recently-developed Downtown Physical Concept Plan, will require a cooperative approach between the users of the system, downtown merchants, downtown property owners, downtown developers, the County and the City. j However, we must realistically recognize that this hasn't happened to date, and we must turn our thinking from "what should be" to "what are the conditions for causing or inspiring this to happen" . I Admittedly the present is not a good time to press this point. The nation, depending on the analyst, is either in recession or in the very preliminary stages of a recovery. In California, the recovery, by most reckoning, will be slow and awkward. Many merchants have let us know of their present business difficulties. Merchants are understandably preoccupied with their own business issues, financing inventory, the ! French Pavilion/Copeland development, downtown water line replacement, seismic safety requirements, competition from outside areas, and other issues of recession/recovery. While they really haven't had a full opportunity as yet to "buy-into" the vision of the future downtown as offered in the Downtown Plan, this Plan has yet to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and speaks very directly to the downtown parking issue. Additionally, downtown parking doesn't exist as its own entity, but is part of a larger transportation system/mode of transportation issue, which should receive fresh emphasis in the new reorganization of the Public Works Department. Downtown parking suffers from a myth. The myth, and unfortunately the way we usually treat it, is that it is a thing within itself; that it is an activity and a responsibility which is somehow separate from the total i "downtown shopping center", its owners and its merchants. However, as any contemporary shopping center developer will tell you, parking is but one intrinsic element of a total package which, correctly put together and supported, spells success. While it isn't the reason for the shopping center, its absence or deficiency creates a handicapped, less- than-fully-functional center. There's another dynamic at work here which is that if the downtown business community believes that additional parking can be developed through "some other source" , then there is no incentive to commit their own resources. "Other source" funding has certainly been the history of downtown parking development. The two-structure, multi-lot downtown parking system has been obtained basically through the money of the parking users, and through the planning and effort of the City. Other surface lots have been acquired and developed over the years by the City, in some cases using the General Fund. 017-3 �II�IiII °11���Ir�IIIfvIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIII city o� San . _ .s oBispo , COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I Supplemental Fees Page Four Though there has been a good working relationship with the downtown community, certainly for the past several years, it has not resulted in financial participation by the merchants in the downtown parking system. The situation, at present is that the downtown business community is quite well served by the parking program, there are no major perceived deficiencies or wants, and hence there is no desire (perceived need) to sacrifice by financial participation. Realistically, however, the City does not have the resources to assume primary responsibility for future major parking development. Certainly the General Fund, which in essence represents the tax resources of all residents, is not in a position to contribute toward downtown parking - at least not without diminishing other services which will impact all residents. I Perhaps, realistically, what has to happen is that the City will continue i in the "operation and maintenance, preservation-of-the-status-quo" role until such time as the downtown business community sees the need for improvement/expansion of the system, at which time they will also recognize the need for greater involvement and financial participation. In conclusion, present discussions are not leading to downtown merchants "buying-into" the concept that they should make a financial contribution to the downtown parking program. Much of this resistance can be attributed to the present financial situation of individual businesses. There apparently needs to be a plan or a program that the merchants can buy into before they are willing to contribute. They have to see and feel what they are buying, and they won't pay for what they already have. Such a plan may come out of the City' s review and approval of that Downtown Physical Concept Plan. That prospective action, combined with a healthier economy, would provide the opportunity to reapproach this subject. Attachment: SUMMARY QUOTATIONS FROM KEY DOCUMENTS Exhibits Available in Council Reading File: 1. Memo from Keith-592 2 Assessment District Flow Chart 3. Parking Fund Deficit Elimination and Program Improvement 4. Portion of Parking Management Plan- 1987 S. Portion of Parking Management Plan- 1990 6. Parking Management Committee minutes: 6.27-90, 7-18-90,9-12-90,3-27-91, 1-3-9,, 2-7-92,3-6-92 7. BIA Board meeting minutes 1-14-92,3-10-92 & Parking Revenue Plan(Phase 1) Council Agenda Report 9-18-90 blatmx/wpll SUMMARY QUOTATIONS FROM KEY DOCUMENTS Parking Management Plan-1987 Financing ACTIONS: * Increases in parking meter rates and citation rates, along with establishment of parking structure fee, an in-lieu fee program, and supplemental fee program from downtown businesses, will provide the funding necessary to support an effective parking program. TIMELINE: All actions are expected to be in effect by January 1988. POLICY: * The City will seek financial support of a parking program from merchants and business owners. ACTION: * A supplemental revenue program involving all members of the business community will be developed by the Business Improvement Association and city staff and presented to the City Council for review and incorporation into the Management Plan. TIMELINE: * By April 1988 , a supplemental program will be submitted for City Council consideration. Parking Management Plan-1990 Financing ACTIONS: * Continue in-lieu fee program and establish supplemental fee program from downtown businesses which will provide the funding necessary to support an effective parking program. Support of Parking Program by Merchants and Businesses ACTIONS: * A supplemental revenue program involving all members of the business community will be developed by the Business Improvement Association and City staff and presented to the City Council for review and incorporation into the Management Plan. TIMELINE: * A supplemental fee program will be submitted for City Council consideration upon completion of the business license tax restructure or no later than July 1, 1991. Attachment /�l7 BIA Boardmeeting Minutes March 12 , 1991 It is the BIA' s intention to contribute a minimum amount of $73 , 000 to the parking fund through a process to be worked out with the business license process. This money is to be earmarked for expansion purposes. BIA Boardmeeting Minutes January 14 , 1992 Martin questioned the motion made at the March 12 , 1991 board meeting. Brown stated that the motion was specifically vague and never approved a supplemental fee. Lyon asked Rademaker to continue researching the item and make a recommendation to the board. BIA Boardmeeting Minutes March 10 , 1992 Lyon appoints subcommittee to investigate Supplemental Fees. fir�