HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/2005, 3 - 2005-07 PARKING FUND REVIEW council z 2005
acEnaa REpom " pumbw
C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Robert Horch,Parking Services Manager
SUBJECT: 2005-07 PARKING FUND REVIEW
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and discuss the fiscal health of the Parking Fund.and related issues.
2. Direct staff to work with stakeholders on revenue enhancements needed to fund new parking
supply projects and return to Council in early 2006 with recommendations for implementation.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The current parking rates and revenues are adequate to support current operations and projects
including the soon-to-be-completed 919 Palm (Palm-Morro)Parking Structure. As a result,no rate
increases will be necessary in 2005-07.
However, funding additional parking supply projects, such as a parking garage at Palm and
Nipomo, will require added revenues. Moreover, there are a number of other uncertainties, such as
the impact of the new County office building, Chinatown, and the possible sale of Lot 2 at Broad
and Marsh, that could have substantial impacts on parking operations and the financial capacity of
the Parking Fund. According, this report identifies several revenue enhancements for future
consideration; however, we do not recommend implementing .any of these options at this time.
Given the current financial condition of the Parking Fund, this would be premature until projects
that affect parking supply and potentially increase parking demand can be assessed. However, staff
recommends that we begin the dialogue with stakeholders to evaluate revenue enhancement options
and return to Council with recommendations for implementation in early 2006.
DISCUSSION
On June 1, 2004, the Council considered the 2004-05 Parking Fund review that projected revenues
and expenditures for the current fiscal year. As part of that report, staff identified that in the "out
years," the Parking Fund would need added revenues due to projections for significant capital
outlays, such as the Palm-Nipomo parking structure project as well as the Chinatown project and its
subsequent conversion of parking lot spaces.
We recommended that potential revenue enhancements to the Parking Fund be considered as part
of the next Parking Fund review in 2005 (this report), as we believed that more specific information
might be gained in the subsequent 12 month period on key projects like Chinatown. While some
new information has been garnered (an application for Chinatown has recently been submitted and
3 -/
i
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 2
better financial numbers exist for a potential Palm-Nipomo garage), there continues to be
significant unknowns in revenue and expenditure expectations due to the timing and complexity of
the various projects that may affect the Parking Fund..
For this reason, we have prepared the two most likely scenarios for changes in Parking Fund
working capital Council consideration:
1. Scenario 1 ("status quo') forecasts the Parking Fund with only expenditure and revenue
proposals approved to date (the addition of the new Palm-Morro Structure and no new revenue
streams). This is a baseline scenario that.can be used to gauge the health of the Parking Fund as
it exists currently.
2. Scenario 2 includes the"status quo' assumptions but also forecasts the effects that the Palm-
Nipomo structure improvement project might have on the Parking Fund.
Scenario I Findings. Under Scenario 1, revenues and expenditures are essentially in balance for
the long-term. Beginning in 2006-07, we project a small annual gap of$12,000. This deficiency
could grow to the modest amount of $134,700 per year by 2009-10 if our assumptions prove
correct. However, the Fund has a very strong working capital balance, estimated at $4.1 million at
the end of 2005-07. In short, the Parking Fund is in good financial shape in supporting current
operations.
Scenario 2 Findings. However, as shown in Scenario 2, the Parking Fund will need additional
revenues in order to fund additional supply projects or any new significant increase in operations..
Based on current estimates, a 400-space parking structure at the Palm/Nipomo site will require
approximately $1.2 million annually in additional income to finance. Also, depending on the
solutions for the new County office building and the Chinatown project, this gap could be much
bigger.
As a result, staff has identified possible revenue enhancements for preliminary consideration, which
are outlined below. We recommend returning to the Council with a more detailed analysis of these
options after we have fully identified the issues associated with recent development proposals and
we have discussed the revenue options with stakeholders. For example, the Chinatown project
analysis will be very complex, and we do not know at this time what,if any, parking mitigation will
be required of the developer of that project. Thus, it is premature to make too many assumptions
regarding that project, which may — or may not — highly impact the financial condition of the
Parking Fund.
Attachment 1: Forecast Assumptions and Detailed Analysis
Due to the nature of the Parking Fund and how revenues are derived, forecasting of the Fund has
never been an exact science. Fines and meter revenues have a tendency to vary depending on many
factors such as tourism, whether Cal Poly is in or out of session and the amount of Downtown
construction disruption. For these reasons, it is important to be clear regarding the assumptions that
are used to forecast the Parking Fund for each of the potential scenarios. Attachment 1, the 2005
3 -Z
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 3
Scenario 1: Status Quo Including 919 Palfn/Morro Structure
It is important to have a baseline scenario to derive conclusions regarding the need for potential
revenue enhancements for the Parking Fund. Attachment 1, the 2005 Parking Fund Analysis,
contains two financial scenarios for this purpose. Exhibit Al of that attachment contains a detailed
scenario analysis entitled "Changes in Working Capital -Parking Fund-Status Quo" which should
be used as a baseline for fund assessment. Projected sources of revenue and expenditures for the
Parking Fund over the five-year period from 2005-06 to 2009-10 have been forecast as part of this
analysis. This scenario analyzes decisions made to date with no new significant projects or
programs. It assumes only minor CIP expenditures with no new significant projects or programs. It
should be used to indicate the solvency of the annual revenues versus expenditures for the forecast
period.The following table is excerpted from the analysis:
Table 1—Status Quo Scenario
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008.09 2009-10
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Total Revenues 3,450,600 3,534,700 3,567,400 3597,100 3,626,300
Total Expenditures 3,157,900 3,530,400 3,692,800 3,747,000 3,742,600
Total Other Sources(Uses) (9,400) - (16,900) (17,400) (17,900) (18,400)
Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 283,300 (12,600) (142,800) (167,800) (134,700)
Working Capital,Beginning of Year 3,876,600 4,159,900 4,147,300 4,004,500 3,836,700
Working Capital,End of Year 4,159,900 4,147,300 4,004,500 3,836,700 3,702,000
Note:Boldface indicates negative annual cash flow
This scenario demonstrates there will be a small gap in funding starting in 2006-07 that is likely to
grow by a modest level by 2007-08 and beyond. However, the annual gap is small in comparison to
the overall fund amounts; and because significant other issues (such as a new parking supply or
demand projects have yet to be fully assessed) have higher impacts, adjusting revenue streams at
this time is premature. Accordingly, due to very strong working capital balances in the Parking
Fund, no rate increases are recommended at this time.
Scenario 2: Status Quo Plus Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure
Exhibit A.2 of Attachment 1, "Changes in Working Capital - Parking Fund — Palm/Nipomo",
forecasts sources of revenue and proposed expenditures for the Parking Fund over the six-year
period from 2005-06 to 2010-11 and then adds the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure project to the
status quo scenario. An additional year was included in the forecast to adequately review potential
effects of debt financing of Palm/Nipomo project which would not be fully realized until 2010-11.
33
i
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 4
Table 2—Palm/Nipomo Scenario
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Total Revenues 3,450,600 3,534,700 3,516,500 3,482,000 3,675,100 3,678,100
Total Expenditures 3,157,900 4,730,400 3,692,800 15,747,000 4,765,600 4,827,500
Total Other Sources(Uses) (9,400) (16,900) (17,400) 12,607,100 (18,400) (19,000)
Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 283,300 (1,212,600) (193,700) 342,100 (1,108,900) (1,168,400)
Working Capital,Beginning of Year 3,876,600 4,159,900 2,947,300 2,753,600 3,095;700 1.986,800
Note:Boldface indicates negative annual cash flow
This scenario allows us to build and finance the Palm/Nipomo parking structure. However, it
significantly accelerates the time when annual expenditures exceed revenues. Depending on when
actual design for the structure would begin, negative cash flow could occur as soon as 2005-06 if
there is the need to start design at the same time environmental review is undertaken. Again,
substantial working capital available at the start of each fiscal year keeps the fund whole but in an
upside down annual cash flow position.
The effect of the Palm/Nipomo project is that the working capital is reduced by over $1.2 million
annually from the status quo scenario. Assuming that full debt payment for Palm/Nipomo would
begin in 2009-10, significantly higher revenue sources would be necessary to preserve the Parking
Fund's obligations to pay bond debt and continue to provide parking services. As seen in Table 3,
because of an annual cash flow and resulting reduction of working capital, annual fund reserve is
likely not to satisfy the City's policy of meeting annual debt service payment. While this position is
not critically unstable, it does demonstrate the negative effect of annual revenues not meeting
expenditures.
Carrying out this deficiency for the next two years would show that the fund would exhaust its
reserve capital and would be required to enact new revenue measures to meet annual expenditures.
Table 3—Debt Payment Projections
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
Palm&Marsh(until tun 2014) 502,200 500,800 498,600 502,200 499,300 502,200
Marsh Expansion(until Aug 2031) 427,800 427,100 426,500 425,788 425,169 424,500
919 Palm 179,600 544,200 544,200 544,200 544,200 544,200
Palm Nipomo 868,000 868,000
Radio/Dispatch Center Upgrade 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 .2,300
1,109,600 1,474,400 1,471,600 1,474,488 2,338,969 2,341,200
Note:Bold face indicates year when debt service payments exceed start of year working capital.
J ��
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Pages
Revenue Enhancement Options
The Parking fund has faced difficult times in the past. More than once in the last twenty years the
annual fund analysis has indicated that if majorcapital expenses were to be undertaken, new
revenue streams should be implemented. Council has responded to each of these occurrences by
adjusting rates, fines and the parking in-lieu fee program to adequately cover the projected needs of
the fund. Chart 1 shows amine year history of annual revenues for the Parking.Fund.
Chard—Annual Parking Fund Revenue (No Debt Financing Included)
.$3,400,000
$3,251 AM
$3,300,000
$3200.000
$3,100,000
$3,000.000
ffi.900,000 12-64-9 900
S ,B79,8N
$2,800,000
$2,700,000 _ $2,751800
$200,000
$2,631,100
82,500,000
.$2,400,000 82;<5w
$2,300,000 $2,348,100
$2200,000 ._. _._.. . .Total Revenue(non-tleht iinancinp) .
$2,100.000
$2,000,000
FY 95.96. FY 96.97 FY 97.98 FY 98.99 FY 99.00 FY 00.01 FY 01-02 FV 02-03 FY 03.04
The chart does not include revenue from bond proceeds. This is done to show the annual amounts
of steady revenue and not the one time. only revenue bump received by the fund that is usually
canceled out by a similar expenditure for that year. Thus, the amounts shown in Chart 1 should be
used to demonstrate how the fund revenue has kept pace with increased costs and the annualized
debt payments that have occurred for the Marsh Street Expansion .and building of the 919 Palm
Street structure.
While there are a multitude of documents that discuss potential parking revenue for the City one
document provides policy direction and technical recommendations for Council consideration - the
2002 Access and Parking Plan. The 2002 Access and Parking Plan established the following
actions of how the City should consider increasing parking revenue:
6.4 The City will:
Q Review parking meter and citation rates every two years and make adjustments as
needed
I
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 6
Continue to charge variable rates for different types of parking.
Continue to collect in-lieu fees from development projects in the commercial core.
Q Consider new fee programs applicable to commercial core merchants, business owners,
and property owners.
The following revenue enhancements, including their potential downsides, are provided as
preliminary options to facilitate a discussion with Council and with stakeholders for future
consideration. We are not offering these options as part of the 2005-07 Budget because the fund is
sufficiently funded for the next couple of years. Instead, we recommend that the Council direct
staff to work with stakeholders and return with findings on potential revenue options in early 2006.
REV 1. Re-evaluate our parkin fine schedule/raise fines.
Parking fines should be high enough to deter illegal activities and prohibit parking where none
should occur. Under section 40203.5 of the California Vehicle Code, our fines, to the extent
possible, should be standardized with other agencies in the County. Our fines are not currently
keeping pace with fines other parking fines within the County. For example our meter fine is $12
and Cal Poly's fine is $15. Possible increases to the City's fine schedule are indicated below using
the top six most issued citations.
Revenues
overtime Meter $12 to$15 100,000
No Residential Permit $20 to$25 14,000
Prohibited Parking $35 to$40 5,000
Overtime Parking $17 to$20 3,700
Night.Parking 3AM-5 AM $20 to$25 3,000
Loading Zone $35 to$40 4,000
129,700
Costs
No additional costs
Net Revenue 129,700
This could be a conservative estimate based upon our historical increase in fine revenues when we
have raised fine amounts in the past however, fines have a tendency to fluctuate so conservative
estimates for planning purposes is prudent. If Council opts to pursue this option staff will perform
a countywide comparison to determine consistency with other agency exactions.
REV2. Rates Increases
In the early 1990's Council adopted a long term meter increase program. The program centered on
increasing the meter rates every three to five years to adequately cover increased costs of parking
operations and maintenance. The final meter rate adjustment of this program occurred in 2003.
3—�
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 7
Historical Meter Rate Adjustments
1/1988 1/1991 1/1994 1/1998 1/2003
Exterior .30/hour .30/hour .40/hour .50/hour .60/hour
Meters
Downtown .50/hour .60/hour .70/hour .80/hour
Core Meters
Presently there are no further rate increases pending. The last authorized increase in parking
structure fees was in July 2004 when our structure rates were increased from $0.60 to $0.75 an
hour. This rate change was done to bring garage fees in line with meter rate adjustments made in
2003. It seems appropriate that the City establish another long term meter and structure rate
increase program however, any change to fees and fines will most likely be controversial.
Example of raising rate: The following example demonstrates the revenue enhancement resulting
by an increase in the 10-Hour meter rates from $0.60 to $0.70 an hour and 2-Hour Meters from
$0.80 to .90 an hour. This would raise remaining meter rates by approximately 10%.
Revenues
Revenue Estimate(10%Increase to Meters&10-hour meter permits) 147,000
Costs
Printing (2,000)
Net Revenue 145,000
REV3. Extend parking services in the downtown to include Sunday.
The concept of charging for parking from noon to 6:00 PM on Sundays has previously been
considered by the Council. The rationale for charging on Sundays is that demand for parking in the
Downtown on Sundays now appears to be similar to other days of the week. This has not always
been so. Many years ago Sundays were a"down'time for downtown. This no longer appears to be
the case. Currently, structures and meters are open for free parking on Sundays and have high
occupancy rates. The following table projects out the revenue and costs associated with extending
parking operations to Sunday from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM and from noon to 6:00 PM.
Revenues 9AM-6PM 12PM-ePM
Revenue Estimate(16%of Meters,Garage fees&Fines) 422,400 254,458
Costs
Staffing Estimate(Booth Attendants&Parking Officer) (27,500) (16,566)
Contract Service-citation processing (8,000) (4,819)
Laundry-Uniforms (1,800) (1,084)
Printing (3,000) (1,807)
Electric (2,000) (1,205)
Misc Supplies (2,000) (1,205)
Net.Revenue 378,100 227,771
Charging parking fees on Sunday has been controversial in the past. First, the Mission conducts its
major services on Sunday and has so for a very long time. Establishing a fee could impact
parishioner access to the facility. In addition, in surveys conducted with Sunday parkers, many
—�
j
2005-07 Parking Fund Review _Page 8
indicate they chose to shop on Sundays because parking is free. Therefore instituting fees on
Sunday could have potential negative effects that should be considered carefully before
implementation. Staff does not recommend implementing this option without charging in all
surface lots,on-street meters, and providing parking enforcement similar to other days of the week.
REV 4.Eliminate the 1"Hour free in the structures.
Allowing for free use of parking structures for the first 60-90 minutes has long been debated as a
pro or con for encouraging parking in the structures in lieu of at street meters. Currently, the City
allows the first 60 minutes free to encourage use of the garages and relieve pressure for the high
demand meters spaces. Some use this service and some do not: As we transition to more structures
and away from metered lots the demand for short term parking in the structures should increase.
However, if structure costs are established similar to street meter costs there could be disincentive
to use the structures for short term parking and instead increase parkers circling Downtown streets
in search of the elusive single space next to there destination. Similar to Sunday service,this option
should be fully assessed prior to implementation to understand potential ramifications. One way to
mitigate some of the impacts of this option might be to expand the current token program that
allows merchants to buy down the first hour in the parking garages at a discount rate. The
following table estimates the net revenue expected if this option were implemented by the City.
Revenues
Revenue Estimate 200,000
Costs
Contract Services-Programing Scan Net (1,000)
Printing (2,000)
Signs (1,000)
Net Revenue 196;000
REV5. Put parking meters on the 600 Block of Palm next to Mission High School.
On the south side of Palm Street between Broad and Nipomo there are parking meters and a public
parking lot. The opposite side of the street (in front of Mission Prep) there are no meters. The high
school now has its own parking structure which has alleviated some of the need for non-controlled
parking in the area. They are currently charging for parking in their structure to recuperate some
construction costs. As a result, demand for the free parking for some students and faculty is high.
The public parking lot across the street has a low utilization rate as a result. Implementing meters
on this side of the street will negatively affect current parkers in the free parking area but would
lead to enhanced revenue and could cause higher use of the Palm/Nipomo lot.
Revenues
Revenue Estimate(25 meters x$800) 20,000
Costs
Meter,pole,sleeve,&installation(25 meters x$550) (13,750)
Net Revenue(Year.1) 6,250
Net Revenue(thereafter) 20;000
3��
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 9
Prior to implementing this option staff would need to investigate potential impacts to the high
school and surrounding residences.
REV6. Add parking meters to Pismo Street and Peach Street.
Pismo and Peach Street are currently within the downtown parking meter district but do not have
meters along certain segments of each street. There are many daily vehicles parking in this area that
work in the downtown. While significant revenue could be realized by extending meters on these
streets potential negative effects could occur by pushing daily parkers farther into the adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The following forecast potential revenues of installing meters along
these streets.
Peach Street–Broad to Santa Rosa
(Revenues
Revenue Estimate(139 meters x$800) 111,200
Costs — I
Meter,pole,sleeve,&installation(139 meters x$550) (76,450)
iNet Revenue(Year 1) 34,750
[Net Revenue(thereafter) 111;200
Pismo Street–Nipomo to Osos Street
Revenues
Revenue Estimate(78 meters x$800) 62,400
Costs
Meter,pole,sleeve,&installation(78 meters x$550) (42,900)
Net Revenue(Year 1) 19,500
Net Revenue(thereafter) 64400
REV7. Add parking meters to the 1600 and 1700 block of Slack next to Cal Poly.
Currently there is open and free parking for Cal Poly students and faculty on Slack Street west of
Grand Street. This segment was unrestricted in previous years due to the public elementary school
across the street from Cal Poly. That school is no longer open. This option would install meters (or
permit restrictions) along this segment of Slack Street. We would generate revenue and at the same
time discourage parking in residential areas around Cal Poly or encourage students to use public
transportation or other alternative means of transportation. This option could impact some
residences in the neighborhood but might alleviate some neighborhood/university conflicts.
[Revenues
Revenue Estimate(53 meters x$40/month x 12) 25,440
Costs ._�
Meter,pole,sleeve,&installation 53 meters x$550 (29,150)
Net Revenue.(Year 1) (3,710)
Net Revenue(thereafter) 25,440
3 =�
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 10
gz
.frF PF
1%F� Ft` F ��tE FF ���'
7 ?
..r! InL r.T/ v � E
7-1
Figure 1 —Slack Street West of Grand Avenue
REVS. Downtown parking assessment district
The 2002 Access and Parking Plan recommends that the City consider new fee programs applicable
to commercial core merchants, business owners and property owners to assist in long term
implementation of parking supply. This issue has been controversial in the past and will no doubt
be controversial if and when pursued by the City. Currently the vast majority of the parking fund is
generated by rate payers and fine generation. While it is difficult to determine, a ceiling exists that
rate payers are willing to consume before they chose not to park in Downtown and instead shop
elsewhere. Therefore, while the subject is controversial from a business impact perspective, solely
relying on ratepayers for long tern revenue of parking supply implementation could have the same
net effect of driving shoppers away from the City core.
Summary of Revenue Enhancement Options
Option# Option Description Net Revenue Estimate
REV1 Increase Parking Fines 129,700
REV2 Rate Increase-Meters Wor Structures 145,000
REV3 Extend to Sundays 9 AM-6 PM 378,100
Extend to Sundays 12 PM-6 PM 227,771
REV4 Eliminate 1st Hour Free in Structures 196,000
REV5 Meters on 600 blk.Of Palm 20,000
REV6 Meters on Pismo&Peach 173,600
REV7 Meters on 1600& 1700 Wks.Of Slack 25,440
REV8 Downtown Assessment District Unknown
As seen in the summary, even excluding the assessment district option, if all other revenue
enhancement options were enacted there would be approximately $1.2 million in potential new
revenue which would be enough to fund the Palm/Nipomo structure. On the other hand,this clearly
shows that any supply projects after this will clearly require a significant new revenue source, such
as an assessment or improvement district.
3-� a
2005-07 Parking Fund Review Page 11
CONCURRENCES
Prior to implementation of any Downtown revenue enhancement measures, the City should pursue
input from the stakeholders including the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce and
downtown businesses.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no direct fiscal impacts due to the recommendations in this report.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1: 2005 Parking Fund Analysis
I:LCouncil Agenda Reports\2005 agenda reports\Transportation and Development Review(Bochum)\Parlang(Horch)TARKING
Fund CAR2005.DOC
3-�l
2005 Parking Fund Analysis
June 2, 2005
Prepared by the
Public Works Department
city Of san IDIS OBI SPO
Page 2
My of san Luis oBispo
2005 Parking Fund
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW
.H. 2005-07 FINANCIAL PLAN
A. Summary of Operating Programs
B. Significant Operating Program Change Requests
C. Capital Improvement Plan Requests
D. Debt Service Payments
III. ASSUMPTIONS
A. Status Quo Scenario
B. Status Quo +Palm/Nipomo
IV. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
A. 919 Palm Parking Structure
B. Electronic Parking Way-finding Signs
C. Chinatown
D. Residential Parking Permit Districts
V. EXHIBIT A—FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
1. Status Quo Scenario
2. Status Quo+ Palm/Nipomo
3�/3
r
Page.3
Clay Of
san Luis oaispo
2005 Parking Fund Report
I. OVERVIEW
.This report presents the financial condition of the Parking Fund, based on the draft 2005=07
Financial Plan operating program budgets, and recommended program and capital requests to
address the identified needs in the Parking and Access Plan, capital improvement projects, and
adopted city financial and infrastructure maintenance policies.
H. 2005-07 FINANCIAL PLAN
A. Summary of Operating Programs
2005-06 2006-07
BUDGET BUDGET
Staffing 844,600 846,000
Contract Serpices 552,700 577,300
Other Operating Expenditures 150,700 154,200
Minor Capital 0 0
Total Parking Services $1,548,000 $1,577,500
B.Significant Operating Program Change Requests
2005-06 2006-07
BUDGET BUDGET
Parking Operations
Parking Operations/Maintenance Enhancements 49,200 46,300
Pay-on-Foot parking structure feasibility study 0 10,000
Total $49,200 $56,300
3^i y
� I
_ Page 4
C.Capital Improvement Projects
2605-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
Financial Management System 2,200
Internet Voice 40,200
Technology management improvements 21,200 3,500
Fleet Replacement-2.Scooters 54,000
Traffic Safety Report Implementation 30,000
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure 1,200,000 12,000,000
Parking:Lot/Structure Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Fueling&Gate Control system replacemen 1,200
$ 33,400 $ 1,200,000 $ 111,400 $ 12,107,500 $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Note*Costs for Palm Nipomo Structure are estimated and not yet approved by Council
D. Debt Service Payments
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
Palm&Marsh(until Jun 2014) 502,200 500,800 498,600 502,200 499,300 502,200
Marsh Expansion(until Aug 203 1) 427,800 427,100 426,500 425,788 425,169 424,500
919 Palm 179,600 544,200 544,200 544,200 544,200 544,200
Palm Nipomo 868,000 868,000
Radio/Dispatch Center Upgrade 2,300 2;300 2,300 2,300_ _ 2,300
$ 1,109,600 $ 1,474,400 $ 1,471,600 $ 1,474,488 $ 2,338,969 $ 2,341,200
Note*Debt Service payments for Palm Nipomo Structure are estimated and not yet approved by Council
III. ASSUMPTIONS
The following provides more detail for the key assumptions in Exhibits Al and A2 to this report,
the financial schedules showing the Parking fund's changes in financial position and the listing
of assumptions. For the sake of analysis to determine the health of the fund, two scenarios have
been developed: 1) The Status Quo - which only forecasts out revenues and expenditures for
projects and programs approved to date, and; 2) Status Quo + Palm/Nipomo Structure
Construction.
1) The Status Ouo Scenario Assumptions:
1. Revenue from meters, garage fees, passcard sales, meter permits, leases, and fines will
increase by one percent each year due to increased parking demand.
2. Annual parking garage revenue will increase by $91,776 in Oct. 2005 after completion of
the Palm-Morro Structure & $137,664 beginning 2006-07
3. Ongoing operations appropriations will increase by two and a half percent each year due
to CPI.
3 -/s
1
Page 5
4. The following significant operating program changes will take effect (See detail starting
on page 3):
a. Parking Operations/Maintenance Enhancements @ $49,200 in 2005-06 and
$46,300 in 2006-07
b. Pay-on-Foot parking structure feasibility study @ $10,000 in 2006-07
5. Capital project appropriations from fund balance will include (See details on page 4):
a. Financial Management System @ $2,200 in 2005-06
b. Internet Voice @ $40,200 in 2007-08
c. Technology Management Improvements @ $21,200 in 2007-08 and $3,500 in
2008-09
d. Fleet Replacement-2 Scooters @ $54,000 in 2008-09
e. Traffic Safety Report Implementation @ $30,000 in 2005-06
f. Fueling &Gate Control System Replacement @ $1,200 in 2005-06
g. Parking Lot/Structure Maintenance @ $50,000 in 2007-08, $50,000 in 2008-09,
and $50,000 in 2009-10.
6. Annual debt service for new capital projects will cost $179,600 in 2005-06, $544,200
annually beginning in 2006-07 for 919 Palm beginning and $2,300 annually for City
Radio/Dispatch Upgrade beginning in 2006-07.
2) Status Ouo + Palm/Nipomo Structure. Construction Scenario.Assumptions (in addition to
those above)
1. Annual long term revenue will decease by $6,400 for the loss of meters and $9,600 for
the loss of 10-hour meter permits in Lot 14 beginning in 2007-08.
2. Fine and forfeiture revenues will decrease by approximately 4 percent after Lot 14 is
closed and construction begins for the Palm/Nipomo Structure.
3. Annual lease revenues will decrease by $25,000 for loss of the 633 Palm Street
apartments beginning in 2008-09.
4. Capital project appropriations for Palm/Nipomo Structure @ $1,200,000 in 2006-07, and
$12,000,000 in 2008-09. (note: there may be the need to accelerate design money into
2005-06 to coincide with environmental review)
5. Annual debt service for Palm/Nipomo will be approximately $868,000.
6. Proceeds from a bond issue will finance Palm/Nipomo Structure @ $12,625,000 in 2008-
09.
7. New structure revenue for Palm/Nipomo is estimated @ $155,000 beginning in 2009-10.
8. Annual operating costs for Palm/Nipomo are estimated @ $150,000 beginning in 2009-
10.
3-/io
Page 6
VI. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
A. 919 Palm Parking Structure
It is anticipated that the parking structure at 919 Palm Street will begin operations in late
2005. It is difficult to forecast what effect this additional parking structure operation will
have on exiting management and administration resources. Depending on the
effectiveness of the Pay-on-Foot system included in the project, staff may need to return
to Council in future fund updates with recommendations for resource enhancement to
adequately service all garage facilities.
B. Electronic Parking Way-finding Signs
Staff is currently completing design on the Electronic Parking Way-finding Signs CIP
approved by Council as part of the FY 2003-05 Financial Plan. These dynamic
informational signs are anticipated to go to construction in late 2005 and assist with
access notification for available parking structure capacity during peak season demand.
No additional allocations for this project are necessary.
C. Chinatown Project
Although an application for the Copeland Chinatown project has been submitted (May
2005) a thorough analysis of fiscal and physical potential impacts to the Parking program
has not yet been completed. This analysis will be completed and brought forth to the
Council and community as a separate item from the Parking Fund review.
D. Residential Parking Permit Districts
In 2004 the City updates its process for the formation of residential parking permit
districts. The City averages one new parking permit district implementation per year.
Fortunately, costs associated with processing and implementing these districts are
nominal in comparison to the overall parking program costs.
3-i 7
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
2005 PARKING FUND
FINANCIAL SCHEDULES
318
0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d' �O N
d. O 00 N - 00 as N N a1 N N V1 r- d• M M O
N 0.
rl
Q' O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
d I` Q1 M - M f- O. V1 VI O. Q1 00 V) I-
C V t- N Vl t- d' f-Z -dr �O
00 w O �o f` N - 00 m M O b O n d' O M
O •O M m t` d' N r- == t` v1 �o Vt .-. ... d' r- �.� :.. O 00
W
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
p y \0 M �o M -IT - h (7� O d' T ON 00 d• %0 00 'IT d' 00 M In
U - r- 06 lz 00 M �o C lz �O N T - - N r- t- N lz d'
(+ d O V) %O O 00 M - - �c - C� O - r- ON - d' IT O
p M CN r- It N r - r, uw d' - - d' %0 - •� - - O
Ni N M - N - -ri `� d• d•
a
O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O
r y r Or O N M N - R M O r- V1 V1 (= d' IT cs ON %C T M
00 r- -- cl �O M O O 4 d' t- o0 �O d' O
W C, IT �Q - (D 00 - N O M l- h Ln f` M v v v tr) v
O •O N O\ f` 7 N n - r- W) V1 v O d• xn =
N 0.
O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
C �O y t, to O I, M N - Ln - O �c O O\ O^ V �c O, d' R M �c O\
V1 00 C O V M - N lz O 00 � 'C' C- 01 r c� O\
w
h d O\ M O - O 00 Q - C% %n d• �O M O '%n `-' 00 f- h
O N a, r- d• N �O - IO d' V1 IT O - - N 00 -
N OLD. N c-i - N - c•i M d'
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
+� 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
C00. N - O M vl c, O - O W) N fl d• f+ 00. 00 N �o N 00 �O
y N CN - Ln N d• d' f` O N d• �c O V a, d• 00 N �o N �c
4 'n OS N - O O 00 N ON ON - �o N T �o O �c vl - d• O 00 f-
O N cs �o IT N kn M v f- N ON 'T V1V1 �c d• 00
V1 M
V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O (= O O co 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
7 - - V1 00 N l" 7 - O V1 O o0 00 V1 M %C M V1 00
O W 00 O Vi 7 O� V) M r, M d• ON cn r- N Cl N �o �o N
f7 w N O M �o V) O (7� 00 n h 01 - O V1 - f` ON f- �o M d' 00
O V M O+ V1 M - - M r- N f1 d• 00 V1 f` O �o m O N N dw
N
0
Z
D
Q6
V
z
z y
d E L
rn C C N V V L y C
C O >a 7 Or N O O .0 U y c y 0q•O "' 0A v V W
> > c �• 'fl C y y y ti fL
6. N d �0 N C C � o. C •U = U >
a o U .- ri s a E 4) R O y o m
`C g v H x c E On °" w i,. € rig d oo ar
aocc
>
, 0
Dorn W u e
d 5 a� a
. o
L ,,= "a p FC° e
°
U n. c' 0oisOm
E
E °
� v) .
e e a a
U 0
G .... u c C d W W
fA R N V N L N fS L L :: 'Q 6 V U
V ern Fc .>5r� 0 fl0 UO ro= il. � fw c c
Z W e L c Y
a 6 a L L
' -- CD 0 C)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
" a 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 o_
w 00 M � qtT (= h R N - N-. O �° �° O N DD O O r- 00
r�. u O �o M M 4; M t` 7 00 O 00 000 O O�
O d - 00 R O 00 00 - V) O [- O M M V1 '7 N - ^ n 00 -
'° M C\ o\ R - ON n b O, V) 7 M 00 O� 00
N'
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F„ c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�I r W, r- �D ^ Izr - N - N %n R - r- C1 b O O �D 'IT IRT m l- 00
o` n M o0 C r- vl t+'i N �D O D\ V1 00 o0 00 V1 b
01 Y. O r- M ON 00 00 00 00 O\ r- V) N r- V1 M �oO O\ 00
O M ON O, M - 00 b �D 00 V1 Mm r- - `••� y O Ow
N L N
a
w
O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O (D
y r- C� M kn N N - o, �D V1 O M r-O V1 V) O O ow - - b n
�o V1 V1 M - °� O N � n tr lz of rz v1 [z r- N M V1
OD CJ O b r- °� 00 00 - n as 00 V1 O �o O 11 V N -• O IT h D�
b C �o VI - - R r- b �"' 'o M [� O
N L N M N N Vl N N N M
a -
C. CD 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 o
CGo b M �o - C N - M N O vl. °l °N 00 7 b 00 'IT. !t l w M �o
r V - r- o0 ^- o M O Vi %6 b6 N T - - N lz r-: M r` M
b O Cl 00 N 00 O\ O - l- T - - 0� I Vl
N
Q�
O O O O
O O O O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 C. O CD O OO O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O
C y r- ON O N M N - 7 M O l- 4n V1 O O Cl ":r ON ON b °N C'i
00 r: - M b M O O -eV l- o0 �o O 7 O �o N C� l-
�p y o\ 7 b - O 00 - N O M. r- n V1 O r- M - - V) 7
N r - r v1 V1. C' O N 7 r� N
N L N M - N ^ ^ V v R N
a
O 0000 O Cl O O O O O O 0 0 C. 0 0 0 O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
O421, ON R b o, Q' 'C to b M
j V1 00 C O 4 M - N vz O 00 �O 4n OOM
e � lz � O� �O C
ON M O - O 00 C' - O� V1 R _�o M O to �••� 00 � Vl
N C1 I- d' N �0..- b C V1. R O - - N 00
N L N M - N
a_1
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
V1•'p'. 00 N -- O N Vt cl O - o vt N r- V' r- 00 00 N b N 00 �o
Z. Oi y: N D� - Vi N C C r- O N R b O R (: V o0 N �o �6 N. %o
C T N O O o0 N C\ O+ - b N T b O b Vn - R O 00'. r-
N ON b 7 N V1 O b 00 = -It r N O1 m h Vt b -tr 00
V 'N d/'. M M - M 00 00 v V1 M
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
to -- 00 N l- 'Q - O V1 O 00 00 V1 M b M R M V1 00
z
o6 (6 V1 4 O7 V1 M r- - M 7 O+ M r- N O N b %6 N
N O M �o h O ON 00 r. V1 °� - O to - N 01. r- b M R 00
N M -- m N V•1 N� •--� N V1 Vj
N
V
z
r
x
a
Q R L
a ai
0CI
C O > o D. N o .•7 '� y L
Q U N y d d OA O 0A �••� v 4♦ R
F v 7I Qr y N > p C C
o ° ri R oC i r a C
U U Y y o U OC c E cn W 5 'o u eoo d
d y _
A d a p 0D D. ayi m .O > _
Z y d m ° o a E o ra d 0 y a"' as =0 -0
a `o
Y o L C7 € > = = a = o m 0 0 8 0 Q s e
u .� on F a Do rn U a ; F ao c F= >
t c y t y 0 t o o a L o
3 s m o g � s � u ao � d E•; � �
Z � >c a. .a € � � y •cF- C7 d ,0, 0 �' F o 'O a a
y > c s a o a'Oi o y k - U U
V = Go F - � 0 00 UD
z e a Y Y
Q > a r > L L
3-ZO
council m c m o m n b u m
city of san lues otiispo;aarnmistaat►onbEpaRtment
DATE: June 2, 2005
ERECE-IVED
TO: City Council 2 ?Q�rjVIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer CLERK
FROM: Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer v0 U
SUBJECT: 2005-007 Parking Fund Review Agenda Report
It has come to our attention that somehow, in the process of printing this agenda report, the underlined
words below disappeared from the end of page 3-2:
Attachment I, the 2005 Parking fund Analysis, contains detailed descriptions of all
fund assumptions that have been used to formulate the following scenarios.
We apologize for this inconvenience.
f� OUNCIL �
CDrJ D-IP
LaTICA0I�1CAO FIN DIR
J'ARNEY f SIRE CHIEF
RED FILE W of R.rfCLERTTOK ORIG POLICE CHF
MEETING AGENDA LD DEPT EADS. ✓fin C DIR
TIL DIR
DATE ITEM
�f
RECEIVED)
2 June 2005
JUiv Q 2 LuOJ
To: Tim Bochum, Public Works
Robert Horch, Parking $LO CITY CLERK
From: Tom Swem, Downtown Association Parking and Access Committee
Prepared by Deborah Cash, Administrator
Re: Parking Fund Review
The Downtown Association Parking and Access committee thanks Tim Bochum and Robert
Horch for generating:a solid,well-prepared Parking Fuad Review Report.
The committee, in reviewing the report, would like to submit the following;
• The committee maintains its position that it supports the building of a structure at
Pahn/Nipomo;
• it supports reviewing revenue expansion measures;
• it requests the Council also include direction to update the parking management plan;
• it encourages the Council to look into land sales/supply issue with full understanding of
impacts,
• and the committee also encourages public/private partnerships with regard to developing
parking.
COUNCIL 1CDD DI
1 R
AO .GL'FIN DIR
ACAO -�FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE T ORNEY DPW DIR
-
rCLERKICRIG , POLICE CHF
MEETING AGENDA
El D- T I EA �+�DS �REC DIR
DATE ITEM 1 w J r tl6t .ZUTILDIR
�Ia� DIR