HomeMy WebLinkAbout07_05_2011, PH 3 - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.36.220 (RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT-ISSUANCE) OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MCouncil 2011
j ac Enda rzepoiA wYwt,3
CITY OF SAN LUIS U B t S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.36.220 (RESIDENTIAL
PARKING PERMIT-ISSUANCE) OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL
PARKING PERMITS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 10.36.220 (Residential parking permit-Issuance)
of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code establishing fees for residential parking permits.
2. Adopt a resolution authorizing a$10 fee for annual residential parking permits.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the City Council's direction regarding parking revenue enhancements on April 5, 2011,
and the 2011 Parking Fund review on June 14, 2011, staff is bringing forward recommended
changes to Chapter 10.36.220 (Residential parking permit-Issuance) of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code to establish fees for residential parking permits. Last year the City issued 1512
residential parking permits. Currently there is no fee for residential parking permits providing no
cost recovery for the services provided. The proposed ordinance change will create better cost
recovery for permit issuance, inspections, and enforcement without exceeding the City's reasonable
costs to provide these services. The associated resolution will authorize the fee amount.
There has never been a charge for the residential parking permits issued annually by the Public
Works Department because the program costs were covered by all of the parking fines going to
the Parking Fund, including those issued by the Police department. In 2009, the General Fund
was provided the fine amounts for the parking violations issued by the Police Department. A
substantial number of these parking violations were for nighttime parking districts. The
traditional analysis for covering the costs of the residential permit program no longer justifies
providing free permits due to lower fines to the Parking Fund. Most cities charge for residential
permits.
Assuming all residents purchase permits, .the projected cost recovery is $15,120 annually. The
table below reflects annual costs to provide permits and enforcement of residential parking
districts.
PH3-1
Residential Parking Permit Page 2
Table 1
Expenditures
Category Basis Total
Enforcement 51.81*per hour @ avg. of 12 hours per week for 42 weeks 26,112
Citation Processing 1.50 per citation @ 1,650 citations 2,475
Cite adjudication/info 93.83*per hour @ avg. of 2 hour per week for 42 weeks 7,882
Permit Processing Admin Assit$56.01*per hour @ avg. 240 hours 13,442
Permit Costs Actual costs 5,536
Gasoline Estimated based on mileage of Toyota RAV4 900
Postage and Printing Actual costs 1,537
Si ns Signs & Posts 2,000
Total Expenses 59,885
Revenues
Net Fine Revenue Projected revenues for the last month of 2010-11 44,846
Projected Loss
15,039
hourly rate of Administrative Assistant and Manager
Public Hearing Notification
On May 18, 2011, the Parking Manager met with the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
RQN) Board to let them know about the proposed cost increase. They were informed about
charging $10 per annual residential permit ($20 per residence) in order to assist in covering the
costs of permits, inspections, and enforcement of this program. The Board was given the
rationale and the date of the Parking Fund Review to allow them to comment. Additionally, the
Board was assured that public hearing notices would be sent to both the owners and occupants of
properties within the City's residential parking districts for this ordinance change. The notices
were mailed. So, if a property owner has provided an address of a property manager to manage
the residential permits, those addresses have received public hearing notices.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff recommends establishing the initial fee of$10 for each permit issued annually to assist with
covering the program costs. This is anticipated to bring in$15,120 annually.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance for Residential Parking Permits
2. Legislative Draft of Municipal Code Section 1036.220
3. Proposed Resolution authorizing the fee
T:\Council Agenda Repons\Public Works CAR\201 1\Parking\Residential Parking Permits\Res Parking PenniLDOC
PH3-2
I
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. (2011 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING SECTION 10.36.220 (RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT-ISSUANCE) OF
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING FEES FOR
RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered parking revenue enhancements which included
charging for residential parking permits on April 5, 2011 and directed staff to return with an
enabling ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the staff report, public testimony at a public
meeting, and findings that the fees for residential parking permits does not exceed the costs
associated with the permit issuance, inspections, and enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 10.36.220 (Residential parking permit-Issuance) of the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
10.36.220 Residential parking permit—Issuance.
Annually, the director of public works shall issue two residential parking permits to the
registered property owner, or the registered property owner's representative, as authorized in
writing, of each property shown with a unique number on the latest County of San Luis Obispo
assessment role within each residential parking permit area established by resolution as set forth
in Section 10.36.180. Qualified households that have multiple, separate dwelling units, shall be
eligible for additional permits providing the total number of permits issued to one parcel does not
exceed twice the number of residential dwelling units on the parcel. All parking permits may be
picked up in person at the office of the city parking manager or will be mailed to the address of
the property on written request of the property owner.
Parking permits may be transferred by the residents to any vehicle that is to be parked on the
street and will be recognized by the city providing they are displayed clearly. The parking permits
shall be issued annually. Fees for residential parking permits shall be established by City
Council resolution. The permits shall be considered part of the residential property and shall be
transferred to the new property owner upon sale of the residence. (Ord. 1454 § 4, 2004: Ord.
1264 § 4, 1994: prior code § 3209.21)
INTRODUCED on the 5`f'
day of July 2011, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the—day of 2011, on the following vote:
AYES:
PH3-3
ATTACHMENT 1
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano, City Clerk
AlPROV S O FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
PH3-4
ATTACHMENT 2
Legislative Draft
10.36.220 Residential parking permit—Issuance.
Annually, the director of public works shall issue two residential parking permits to the
registered property owner, or the registered property owner's representative, as
authorized in writing, of each property shown with a unique number on the latest County
of San Luis Obispo assessment role within each residential parking permit area
established by resolution as set forth in Section 10.36.180. Qualified households that
have multiple, separate dwelling units, shall be eligible for additional permits providing
the total number of permits issued to one parcel does not exceed twice the number of
residential dwelling units on the parcel. All parking permits may be picked up in person
at the office of the city parking manager or will be mailed to the address of the property
on written request of the property owner.
Parking permits may be transferred by the residents to any vehicle that is to be parked on
the street and will be recognized by the city providing they are displayed clearly. The
parking permits shall be issued annually and shall be flee ,.r ehar-ge. Fees for residential
parking permits shall be established by City Council resolution. The permits shall be
considered part of the residential property and shall be transferred to the new property
owner upon sale of the residence. (Ord. 1454 § 4, 2004: Ord. 1264 § 4, 1994: prior code §
3209.21)
PH3-5
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS ISSUED
ANNUALLY AT $10
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments with the residential parking permit fee not exceeding the cost of issuance,
inspection, and enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered parking revenue enhancements which included
charging for residential parking permits on April 5, 2011 and directed staff to return with an
enabling ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered the staff report and considered charging for
residential permits at a public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Upon final adoption of the enabling ordinance, fees for residential parking
permits issued annually shall be established and initially set at $10.00 each.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PH3-6
r
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution No. 2011 Series)
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2011.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH3-7
rr," K 3
7/s/ CSC rnEc-nHG
From: Jerry Tucker SE SECB[SMTP:TUCKERJW@JTAENG.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:50:43 PM
To: Council, SloCity d'
Subject: Item 3 under public hearings-fee for parking permits sem
Auto forwarded by a Rule Avro-jr,"
e tcwa
Dear Council Members, Cc: V44-m2
Al^JDevtu E, FoIIC H
I am a property owner in San Luis Obispo. Currently my son is leaving in our house at 385 Albert
Dr. We intend to move there as soon as we retire. I am 66 now. I currently live in Costa mesa,
California.
I am not in favor of starting up a specific fee for parking permit issuance. If it has been found
that the fees that have been collected for violations are less than the expenses,then cut the
expenses!
The largest expenditure is the salaries for enforcement and the permit process. I do not
understand why city employees making over$100,000 a year have to be used to perform these
duties($51.8 X 2080, $56.01 X 2080).
Other than the above cost, you could reduce the amount of time spent in enforcement.
I should not have to pay the city to park my car on the public street. I understand that the
permits are to make sure that I do have a place to park my car,otherwise Cal Poly students
would overrun the parking, but I still do not feel I should be paying the city to park my car in
front of my house.
Jerry&Carole Tucker
949-645-2422
From: Kevin O'Connor[SMTP:KEVIN@MAKECOLORBEHAVE.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:11:41 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kevin O'Connor
Subject: Parking District Fees Changes
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Members of the Council:
My family home is in one of the parking districts, on Fredericks Street. We supported
creation of the parking district because we were desperate to solve the problem of
blocked driveways at my elderly father's home. We had more than one experience where
we needed to get my father to a doctor promptly and couldn't get his car out of his
driveway. We feared an ambulance would be blocked in the same way.
At first, the district seemed to be effective, but over time, it has become significantly less
so. We do not see any signs of enforcement, and have not for some time. If you need
J
funds to pay for these parking plaques,may I respectfully suggest you direct staff to
actually enforce the district?
I am confident this will more than offset the relatively minimal cost of the administration,
as well as generating additional revenues for the city. If you decline to do this,while
charging the residents of the district for an unenforced and ineffective district, it's hard to
see why the district should not be dissolved. After all, it's rather foolish to allow
ourselves to be charged for something that works so poorly, wouldn't you agree? Of
course, what we'd really like is for adequate enforcement to pay for both itself and the
minor costs of printing plaques.
Sincerely,
Kevin O'Connor
From: John Sherry Des@jesherry.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:40 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Carter, Andrew; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy
Cc: Lichtig, Katie
Subject: Parking Permit agenda item
Dear Mayor and Council Member,
With the exception of Andrew Carter, I was dismayed to see the lack of focus exhibited by
Council regarding the Residential Parking Permit agenda item.As Mr. Carter summarized for the
benefit of Ms Smith, Mr. Carpenter and Mr.Ashbaugh, you were there last night not to discuss
the pros or cons of the parking districts but whether or not to charge$10 per permit. Thank you
Mr.. Carter for your clarity.
I do not know why City Council would want to instruct Staff to open up a city-wide reevaluation of
parking districts. As was explained to the Council, I believe three separate times by Mr.. Horch,
Ms Mandeville and Ms Lichtig, the mechanism is already in place for dissatisfied members of a
district to attempt to remove their district. Mr. Horch will assist in that matter and it takes a 60%
vote to dissolve.Why should City Council want to wade into those waters?Are you lacking in
agenda items or believe City Staff needs another project on their plate?
Off topic dissertations by public comment speakers are to be expected.But to hear Ms Smith take
those comments to heart, such as Cal Poly's parking fee of$345(this has what to do with our
parking districts?), or concern for student involvement before voting(the$10/permit is paid by the
home owner, not the tenant), Mr. Carpenter's concern for road maintenance costs in the districts
what?) or the equitableness of parking districts, well, it was really quite befuddling. Mr..
Ashbaugh as acting Vice Mayor, you should have kept the discussion on track of the issue at
hand.
Going off topic of the agenda item as you did last night; here is my two cents:The districts were
created by the residents in the districts for a reason and although less than perfect, they
accomplish their intended goals for those districts. Not everyone in a district may like it, but they
were voted in by the majority. That is democracy. If a district has outlived it's purpose, the
residents can take steps to change or dissolve the district.We don't need a Staff directive..
My particular district, College Highlands was created to counter the heavy impact of nighttime
student parking at houses they party at or.stay over with boyfriends/girlfriends.To some extent it
has helped. But the bottom line is that the street is a visual and functional part of the
neighborhood, it is not a parking lot. This family neighborhood was not designed for 5 vehicles
per house plus guests. Two permits per house gives some sanity to the situation. The 3 closest
student rentals to my home have a total of 15 cars/trucks plus they have many guests. Mr..
Carpenter, is it"equitable"that the front of my home that I have lived in for 24 years should be
their parking lot while they attend Poly for a year? Ms Smith should you be concerned that my
parking district might inconvenience those(transient)students? If you are going to go off topic, I
would like to see my Council championing quality of life and neighborhood wellness.
Thank you Mr. Carter forgetting the vote on track and voting for the fee. It will be a small price to
pay.for the benefits of the College Highlands Parking District.
Sincerely, jrplfJd mac Z C—SP!'A'['oCE
John Sherry
805-544-3839
A-ssrC rr /KG2 izc H
Fr vrct CBur/ .4L4--Ct tC
sac ;
From: David/Rita Delkeskamp [mailto:delksnorth@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 20112:24 PM
To: Mandeville, Peggy
Subject: Proposed fees for residential parking permits
Dear SLO City Council,
My name is David Delkeskamp and I live at 266 Albert dr., a few blocks from Cal Poly.
I URGE YOU TO NOT IMPOSE FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS.
Over the years the permits have worked out to be a bad thing for me and my family.
Approximately once a year or so someone it my family forgets a permit and we are
ticketed. Twice we've been ticketed because even though the permit was clearly visible
on the dashboard of the car it was not hanging from the rear view mirror. The permits for
me are more trouble than they are worth (my vote would to be to go back to no permits at
all) and having to pay for the permits would just make the situation worse for me.
Thanks for listening, David Delkeskamp 6/29/11
RED FILE
hard coor.email:
MEETI GAGENDA G OOUNCD. aCDD Dut
amcRTDM
PATE S/ ITEM #c AWNCM
CIT1
N v
PiRBCG
MUIo EDEF
o ATTORNEY o PwDa
o CLBRIUORIO o POUCECMU
o P3 o PAW&RECDDt
a TRDIUNE a U rM DIR
C NEW LIMBS 0 HRDIR
o swcrymm oCouNCD.
o CD'YMca
C CLM
RED FILE
From: Brad Daane [mailto:brad@greatdaanegraphics.com] MEETINGG AGENDA
Sent: Friday, July 01, 201110:59 AM
pATE^
T
ITEM # f13
To: Mandeville, Peggy
Subject: Residential Parking Permit-July 5th meeting- Item 3
I'm against any type of fees for our residential parking passes. I spend enough money
getting parking citations throughout the year for friends and family. Thanks for you time
and understanding.
SLO Business owner,hard comr, email:
c COUNCIL a CDD DIR
Brad Daane o CITY MGR o FITDIR
u AWCM o F7RECHIEF
GREAT DaaNE GRAPHICS
o ATTORNEY aPWDIR
o CLERMRIG o PDLICE CHIEF
535 Cuesta Dr., SCO, CA 93405 1 Direct: 323.810.2723 o PIB a PARBARECIM
httD://www.greatdaanegrai)hics.com G TRIBUNE aUTILDIR
o NEWTIMES o HRDIR
o sLOCITY NEWS a COUNCIL
a CITY MGR
c CLERK
From: Karen Adler[SMTP:FUDGE805@CHARTER.NET]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:59:00 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: residential parking permits
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Madame Mayor & fellow City Council Members:
As one of the active organizers of the Fredericks St./Mc Collum
addition to the original Alta Vista parking district, I wanted to let
you know that we reluctantly support the charge for parking permits.
Although it is sad that a once free service is being removed, it is
more important to keep our parking districts intact. $20 per year is a
small price to pay. But with that fee, we would hope the increase of
SNAP personnel will be updated & that the parking districts will be
patrolled in a timely manner.
Thank you,
Karen Corda Adler
1676 Fredericks St.
SLO 93405
From: Kevin P. Rice[SMTP:KRICESLO@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 1:32:18 AM
To: Council, SloCity; Horch, Robert
Subject: Suggest $480/year for residential parking permits (CC: "RED FILE")
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear SLO Mayor and Council,
You are considering a $10/year fee for residential parking permits on Tuesday.
I suggest a fee of$480/year for each residential parking district permit.
The cheapest parking option the city offers is a$120/quarter permit for 10-hour meter
zones. $480 per year is based upon the city's own rate.
I am heavily impacted by the overflow from an adjacent district. Last week, there were
12 cars packing my short block (with 2 houses) while only 6 cars were parked inside the
district one block over(on a long block with 15+ houses). PLENTY of available parking
inside the district causing impacts to those who do not have exclusive parking rights.
10 for exclusive use of a public street for one year is UNACCEPTABLE and offensive.
Please consider the overflow to adjacent streets and denial of use to the public. You
wouldn't allow such an unmitigated impact on any other city project... WOULD YOU?
Selling 1,512 parking spaces for$15,120? No, you wouldn't do that--I'm positive.
EVEN WORSE: You are also forfeiting the UNUSED spaces for which no permits are
purchased! For nothing in return to anyone.
For years, district residents have enjoyed free exclusive parking while impacting and
denying use to others. A reasonable fee should be assessed. $480 per year is reasonable,
though a higher fee is justifiable due to the forfeit of unused spaces caused by parking
districts.
See you all Tuesday evening.
A Happy Fourth to all!
Kevin P. Rice
333 Luneta Dr
805) 602-2616
FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATEITEM #AM3
From: Ione Donati [dona1153@att.net]
Sent:Tuesday, July 05, 20111:04 PM
To: Carter, Andrew
Subject: Re: the current proposal to charge for residential "Parking Permits."
Dear Mr. Carter,
We built our home in 1956 and have lived in it and paid taxes on it all these years. I did
not agree with the proposal for the Grand Ave. area residential parking permits years ago,
and resent even more,being charged to park in front of my own home now. If the city
does levy a charge for parking permits, it should be directed to those landlords that rent
out their houses.
A few years ago during a life threatening medical event, our four grown children
gathered in our home and at the hospital to give us,their parents,moral support during a
trying time. One of them had their car ticketed because it had no "visible" parking permit
as the permit was not"correctly"placed. Yet, if they—or dozens of young party goers—
had parked in front of any home in our area between the hours of 10 PM to 2 AM parking
permits would not have been necessary.
To add insult to injury, as homeowners we had no recourse in having the ticket
dismissed.
We are long established homeowners, and feel that not only should parking permits be
provided free of charge, but that we should be allowed additional permits so our children
would not get ticketed every time they come over to visit.
Sincerely,
b.rd copy,email-
Ione and Darwin Donati
a COUNCIL p DDDDIR
a CITY MGR o FITDIR
o ASSTCM o FIRECHIEF
o ATIIDRNEY o PWDIR
O CLERRlOR16
c PAOPiBARKS&RECDIR
a TRIBUNE o UTILDIR
o NEWTOM a HRDnt
o sm arY NEm n COUNCIL
o CrrY MOR
0 CLERK
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
From: dfourie[SMTP:DFOURIE@AOL.COM]
DATE4 L ITEM # F1+3
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 1:45:44 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: mike multari
Subject: Objection to residential parking permit fee establishment: July 5 hearing
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Dear Honorable Mayor and.City Council members:
I am writing to let you know of my very strong objections to the proposed
amendment of chapter 10.36.220, regarding residential parking permits and the
establishment of fees for these residential parking permits.
I will be away on vacation for the Tuesday, July 5 public hearing so I am writing
this e-mail to let you know my point of View.
I live at 83 La Entrada Avenue, in the ParkView permit district. I've been a city
resident for 25 years. First of all, let me tell you that I was against the formation
of the residential parking permit district when it was first proposed. While there
are parking issues on neighboring streets--Ramona, Del Sur, Del Norte, and
possibly' lower La Entrada--our block and the blocks further up towards Cerro
San Luis have no parking problems, whatsoever, EVER.
Some neighbors on Ramona and other nearby streets welcomed the creation of
the Parkview residential parking permit district but:for this reason: "Oh, now
college students will not be able to have parties because they'll need permits to
park." It is unclear tome whether-the parking permit strategy has reduced
parties.
Nonetheless, I feel the residential parking permit on my block is pointless; there
are no benefits to it for me, only annoyances. When someone visits and stays
overnight you need to remember to put your extra parking pass in their window
otherwise they get a ticket. When your car is in the shop and you use a rental
car, the same thing happens—you must remember to place the parking pass in
the rental car or receive a ticket (this happened to my husband, Mike Multari,
once time).
Again there are no parking problems on my street. So why should I be forced to
pay for a "service" that I don't want or need. I think the idea is ridiculous that I
should be forced to pay-to park in front of my own house.
I understand that these are tough economic times and that the city is looking for
additional revenues and for cost recovery sources; however, why doesn't the
actual ticket/citation cost cover any costs for administering the residential parking
permit program??hard cour. ensu;
0 COVNCD. 0 CDDUIR
o cnYMGR 0 FR Oil
0 ASST CM 0 FIRE CHIEF
o ATTORNEY 0 PW=
0 CLERKIORIG 0 POLICECWEF
0 PIR 0 PARKS ARECDDI
0 TRIEUNE 0 UTILDIR
0 NEWTNIS a HRDIR
o sLOCITYNm o cOUNciL
a crry MOR
0 CLERK
Please do not establish these permit fees—and, frankly; I would prefer to be left
out of the residential parking permit district altogether. If there is a way to do that,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Denise Fourie
83 La Entrada Ave.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805) 544-9343
dfoude@aol.com
From: Adrienne and Robert Dickinson[SMTP:DICKINSONFAM@HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:02:10 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: regarding parking permit fee discussion July 5 hard Y;eman:
Auto forwarded by a Rule
a MiNCIL a CDD DIR
a CRY MGR a FRDIR
ME
182 Del Norte a ATMR t
CM a FWDU
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 c PM
CURXIOFJG c PF°n ssRE DIR
June 23, 2011 a TMUNE a UMDIR
nvmmHR DIR
RED FILE
a
swaryN
a
COUNCcSIACITYNEWSocouxcn.
a CIrY MGR
City Council Members MEETING AGENDA a cu!"
City of San Luis Obispo
DATEI, ITEM # LW3
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Dear Esteemed Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council:
We are writing in regards the idea to charge for residential parking permits. Thank you
for alerting us to this upcoming item on your agenda,July 5, (ordinance amending
chapter 10.36.220 . . . establishing fees for residential parking permits). We will not be in
town at that time, so we are writing in advance to register our comments on this item.
We were at the meetings in our neighborhood to decide if we should become a residential
parking area in the first place, years ago, and we were opposed to this idea at the outset.
We attended the City Council meeting when this was decided upon and registered our
reasons for our neighborhood not needing permits to park. It has been a hassle to put
signs in cars and to borrow signs from neighbors when we have out of town guests. We
have had to put up with the occasional parking ticket for parking in front of our own
house when we forgot to put a sticker back in after using it for someone else.
Originally, this was to be an area where tickets were given on a complaint-only basis
designed as a ploy to cut down on student parties),but that has changed, and our
neighborhood is patrolled for violations, which takes police time(but does generate
money for the city,probably).
Is there any chance of having residents vote whether they would rather have permits
with fees attached) or go back to a neighborhood with no permits necessary for parking?
Time has gone by, and maybe residents don't really want a parking permit law in our
neighborhood.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Adrienne and Robert Dickinson