HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/2001, 1 - FIRST TIER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRAFT PARKING AND DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN (PDAP). council M.tixts°�
May I,2001
j agcnba aEpoRt It.
CITY OF SAN LUI S O B 1 S P 0
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
SUBJECT: FIRST TIER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRAFT
PARKING AND DOWNTOWN ACCESS PLAN (PDAP).
CAO RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should:
1. Adopt a resolution:
A) reducing the free time in downtown parking garages, increasing the maximum daily fee
charged in garages, and increasing various parking fees and fines effective July 1, 2001; and
B) amending Policy 6.1 of the existing Parking Management Plan on the use of Parking Fund to
allow its initial use to pay for untested parking demand reduction (PDR) activities on a pilot test
case basis and its ongoing use to pay for proven PRD activities that reduce the demand for
downtown parking. (see Attachment A);
2. Receive a progress report on other first tier parking and access activities authorized by the City
Council and endorse implementation strategies, financial plans and schedules for each;
3. Receive and file information on Parking in-lieu fees;
4. Review and endorse Staff recommendations for second tier parking and downtown access
activities.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On January 23, 2001, the City Council directed staff to return in 90 days with recommendations for
implementing five (first tier) activities described in draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan
(PDAP). A sixth activity was to return within 120 days. These activities were called the "low
hanging fruit." In response, staff recommends that free parking time in downtown parking garages
be reduced from 90 to 60 minutes, that the maximum daily fee for parking in a garage be increased,
that various parking fees and fines be increased, that a preferential parking program be initiated and
a transit pass buy-down program be initiated.
Responding to additional Council direction, staff prepared a policy recommendation for the use of
Parking Fund revenues to pay for downtown parking demand reduction (PDR) activities. Staff also
recommends that the following items be considered as second tier implementation activities: reduce
monthly parking pass costs for high-occupancy vehicles; improve bicycle access to the downtown;
establish an advertising program for downtown PDR activities; encourage the County to establish a
Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP); increase 2-hour parking in the commercial core and
limit long-term parking; increase long-,term parking at the periphery of downtown; and work with
SLODA to establish a program for discouraging habitual parking violators.
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 2
DISCUSSION
A. Background
At its January 23, 2001 meeting, the City Council received a presentation from staff on the Parking
and Downtown Access Plan. The Council directed staff to:
1. Seek input from the Downtown Association and return within 90 days with recommendations
for the following first tier PDAP implementation activities:
a. Eliminating the maximum charge limit for downtown garage parking.
b. Reducing free parking in garages from 90 to 60 minutes.
C. Considering an increase to parking fines for overtime violations.
d. Advertising the availability of preferential parking spaces in garages for car pools and
provide sufficient spaces to meet demand.
e. Providing transit pass subsidies for downtown employees.
(CAO Recommendations#1 and#2 respond to this Council directive.)
2. Return within 90 days with recommendations on the next tier of PDAP implementation
activities. (CAO Recommendation #4 addresses this directive, with an evaluation provided in
the body of this report.)
3. Return within 90 days to discuss the issue of paying for Parking Demand Reduction (PDR)
activities from the Parking Fund. (CAO Recommendation#1 and#5 address this directive, with
an evaluation provided in the body of this report)
4. Return within 120 days with recommendations for increasing the in-lieu parking fee charged to
new downtown development to better reflect the cost of downtown parking. (CAO
Recommendation#3.addresses this directive.)
5. Postpone a decision on parking supply triggers and targets until a decision had been made on
the Marsh Street Garage expansion and more is known regarding other plans in the downtown
such as County Government building plans and the Chinatown—Court Street project.
B. Evaluation
1. CAO Recommendation #1: Adopt a resolution reducing the free time in downtown parking
garages, increasing themaximum daily fee charged in garages, and increasing various parking
fees and fines.
CAO Recommendation #1 addresses the first three first tier PDAP issues identified for Council in
January 2001:
Eliminating the maximum charge limit for downtown garage parking.
i-a
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 3
■ Reducing free parking in garages from 90 to 60 minutes.
■ Considering an increase to parking fines for overtime violations.
The following provides a summary of the changes associated with Recommendation #1 and the
estimated additional revenues to the parking fund that will result:
Table 1:Recommended Parking Rate and Fine Increases in Downtown Garages
Item Current Recommended Annual Revenue
Estimate
a. Reduce free time in parking garages 90 minutes 60 minutes $123,000
b. Increase maximum daily charge in garages $3 $5 $25,000
c. Increase fine for expired meters $10 $12
d. Increase fines for overtime violations $15 $17 $50,000
TOTAL $198,000.00
Discussion: While reducing the amount of free time in the parking garages (item a above) is a
rather straight forward measure, staff found that simply eliminating the maximum charge rate for
use of the garages was less desirable from a parking management point of view. Without a set
maximum, customers who need to leave the car in the garage overnight or other such circumstance
would face exorbitant fees when they finally leave. In researching what other jurisdictions do, we
determined that a maximum fee that would, in essence, capture about 95% of all users was most
fair. Using the current rate per hour fee and historical usage data led to the recommendation of a
maximum fee of$5 (item b.above)that would affect about 95% of all users.
In general, every $1 increase in parking fines (items c. and d. above) will increase annual Parking
Fund revenues by about $25,000. In developing the CAD's recommendations, staff consolidated
information on what other communities are charging (see Attachment B). This information
indicates that the proposed fine levels are consistent with the ranges being employed by other cities.
The $2 increase is also consistent with historic incremental increases approved by prior City
Councils.
Monthly Costs: Marsh Street Garage —An Unexpected Byproduct
In reviewing the implementation of the above measures, staff found that a byproduct of enacting the
above recommended changes will be the likelihood that many more employees will utilize the
monthly proximity card pass for the garages in order.to avoid paying the higher daily fee. This has
both positive and negative side effects. Greater use of the proximity cards means that lines leaving
the garage will move faster as payment will not be needed — a positive. A brief review of the
existing purchase of proximity card program can be found in Attachment F.
/-3
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 4
However, a negative result of this will be downtown employees who formerly had a $3 maximum
fee and used either garage sparingly will now see the economics of purchasing a prox card and thus
be encouraged to use the garages to an even greater extent. The existing Parking Management.Plan
emphasizes that employees should use the garages and thus keep the street spaces free for
customers. Until the entire PDAP has been implemented and new strategies are in place,
employees will continue to need garage space. Because the new measures will most likely cause
more prox card purchases and because Marsh Street Garage continues to be the focal point of retail
customer parking needs, staff is suggesting another new parking management strategy:
"differential parking garage proximity card rates" to encourage employee use of underutilized
garages (Palm) and free up space in those of high demand (Marsh). By increasing the prox card fee
for Marsh Street to $50 per month and leaving the existing fee of $40 per month at Palm Street
there will be an economical incentive to use the latter garage.
Table 2: Recommended Monthly Rate Increase For Marsh Street Garage
Item Current Recommended Annual Revenue
Estimate
e. Increase proximity card charges for Marsh $40 $50 $7,500
Street garage only(1)
(1) In FY 2004-05 proximity card costs will be increased for the Marsh Street garage from$50 to$55 and for the
Palm Street garage from$40 to$45.
As seen in Table 2, the additional revenue expected from this change is not significant. What is
significant is freeing up long-term spaces in Marsh Street for high-turnover commercial use.
2. CAO Recommendation #2: Receive a progress report on items four and five of the first tier
activities authorized by the City Council and endorse implementation strategies and schedules for
each.
Items four and five of the six "low hanging fruit" were: 4) advertise preferential parking in garages
and 5) downtown employee transit pass buy down. A summary is provided below for each item
along with benchmarks for their enactment.
Advertise Preferential Parking in Garages and Provide Sufficient Spaces. Staff proposes that
this program include the following components:
(1) Number of Reserved Spaces: at the outset, three parking spaces that are conveniently located
near parking garage street access points will be reserved for registered carpools with three or
more riders. Signs will be installed to clearly designate and reserve these spaces. Two spaces
for vanpools,with appropriate signage, will be established in the small surface lot in back of the
Palm Street garage.
(2) Promotion & Advertisine: the City will advertise and promote the program in normal print and
electronic media including the Downtown Association's (SLODA) newsletter and materials
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 5
distributed by the Chamber of Commerce. Press releases will be distributed. City will contact
the County Rideshare Office and Ride-on Transportation so that these agencies can assist with
distributing preferential parking and other Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) program
information. An inexpensive and easy way to promote the program would be to email the
County, the Downtown Association and other participating or affected agencies. After the
spaces are created, advertising and promotional efforts will be periodically undertaken during
the fust year of the program and will continue, as needed.
(3) Performance Monitoring: For a six month period after initiation, the Parking Section staff will
monitor the use of the carpool spaces. At the end of six months, if 2/3 of the spaces are
occupied 80% or more of the week (excluding Sundays and Holidays), staff will consider
adding additional spaces and monitoring their occupancy, as demand dictates. At the end of
one year after the inception of the project, staff will prepare a report for Council consideration
that documents the extent of motorist participation and suggests further program refinements
(either expansion or reduction of the number of reserved spaces), as needed.
(4) Advertising of Preferential Parkin,: One coordinated advertising program is envisioned that
promotes both the Preferential Parking program and the Transit Pass Buy-Down program
discussed below. The cost of this program is discussed in the Fiscal Impact Section.
Proposed Activity Benchmark: Establish the parking spaces, install signs, and advertise the
program by July 1",2001.
Downtown Employee Transit Pass Buy-Down Program. The purpose of this program is to
encourage downtown employees to use the SLO Transit system for work trips instead of single
occupant automobiles. At its April 13'' meeting, SLODA's Parking Committee supported the
concept of the proposed pass "buy down", recommended coordinating advertising and promoting
this program with other existing TDM services such as Rideshare, and recommended to the DA
Board that it consider supporting the transit pass subsidy by allowing low or no-cost advertising in
the newsletter distributed to its members. Substantial discussion regarding the funding of this
measure with the use of Parking Funds took place and is discussed further under CAO
Recommendation#5 of this report.
To proceed with the program, Staff proposes that a transit pass system be established that includes
the following elements:
(1) Sale of Passes: A monthly "gold pass" would he sold to downtown employees at the City's
Finance Department in City Hall, and at the Parking Office on Chorro Street. The two City
offices currently sell transit passes. Private-sector employees will need to produce their last pay
stub to verify that they are currently employed downtown. If County employees are to be
included as part of a County-sponsored Trip Reduction Incentive Program (TRIP), then the
County should be encouraged to provide some level of financial support for this program — an
issue to be discussed with County Administration.
(2) Buy-Down Amount: establish an initial buy-down of 25% ($18 for a monthly pass vs. the full
price of$24; or$54 for a quarterly pass vs. the full price of$72). This will capture all existing
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 6
downtown employees currently using the transit system plus a few "new converts" and will
serve as baseline numbers for future comparisons of project success.
(3) Participation Goal: 100 new "gold card" monthly passes (or their equivalent) in use at the end
of nine months from inception.
(4) Performance Monitorine: as the number of downtown employees using the existing system is
unknown, the first item will be to identify downtown employee pass users by creating the gold
card just for them. The Finance Department will track the number of new gold card passes sold
each month. At the end of three months the baseline conditions will be set. At that time, the
City will increase the buy-down amount to 50% of the full pass cost, heavily advertise the
program and will monitor participation for another six months. At the end of that time (a total
of nine months), staff will review the success of the program and later prepare a report, for
Council consideration, that documents the extent of employee participation and suggests
elimination or further program refinements, as needed.
(5) Advertising and Promotion: One coordinated advertising program is envisioned that promotes
both the Preferential Parking program and the Transit Pass Buy-Down program discussed
below. The cost of this program is discussed in the Fiscal Impact Section.
(6) Ongoing Support: Assuming the program in successful, staff will work with Ride-On and the
Air Pollution Control District to explore the possibility of acquiring grant funding to continue
and possibly expand this program in the future. In addition, the SLODA has been encouraged
to assist with the program through in-kind support and possibly some direct financial
contribution in the future.
Proposed Activity Benchmarks: Establish monitoring and sales protocol with the Finance
Department, print passes, distribute press releases and other advertising materials, enlist the help of
support organizations, and begin selling "gold card"passes by July 1s`,2001
3. CAO Recommendation#3: Receive and file information on parking in-lieu fees;
At the January 23`d meeting, staff indicated that this action item, the sixth and last of the "low
hanging fruit", might be ready for Council consideration within 120 days (by the end of May).
Staff, in preparation for this activity, thought Council would like to at least see what information we
have accumulated to date. No recommendation is being made at this time and much more work
trying to make an "apples to apples" comparison remains. Additional effort will be spent surveying
other agencies to compare their fee structure with San Luis Obispo's, to discuss this issue with the
SLODA and Chamber of Commerce, and to evaluate alternative methods for establishing an in-lieu
fee that achieves City Council objectives.
Given the vast differences between actual parking costs and the City's current in-lieu fee, and also
the elapsed time since the in-lieu fee ordinance was adopted in 1987, adjustments to the in-lieu fee
are certainly warranted. As seen below the City's in-lieu fee is significantly below fees for parking
established in other communities. The exact mechanism and process to increase and/or change the
i
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 7
fee program will need to be extensively marketed to the community. As part of this process,
various options for establishing a clear policy basis for amending the in-lieu fee program as well as
specific recommendations for fee amounts should be discussed with the Downtown Association
and Chamber of Commerce. In total, this process will likely take additional time to complete
beyond the original anticipated 120 days but no longer than six months.
TABLE 3 -PARKING IN-LIEU FEE SURVEY
April 2001
CITY NEW COMMENTS
CONSTRUCTION
FEE
Carmel $49,980 1996—$27,520
Palo Alto $31,068 19%-$17A4&Ctianged to reflect estimated costs of
new garage o to as-built costs
Walnut Creek $21,831 19%-$16,373 New rate effective 511101
Beverly Hills $20,180
Mountain View $13,000
Hermosa Beach $12,500 1996-$6,000 Recently built new structure&fee
changed
Berkeley $10,000 City Council can implement if a program is put into
place to spend the money in accordance with
AB1600. To date no one has ever paid this amount.
Palm Springs $9,250
Claremont $9,000
Concord $8,500 _
Davis $8,000 Sent copy of their resolution
Monterey $7,215 Sent copies of Ordinances
Mill Valley $6,751
San Jose $5,674 City is currently involved in a process that may
change this fee in the coming year.
San Luis Obispo' $4000
Santa Barbara $0 Utilizes assessment districts.
Santa Rosa $0 Staff wishes they had one but the City-Council is
not in favor of it.
Average Fee: $139028
4. CAO Recommendation #4: Review and endorse Staff recommendations for pursuing second
tier parking and downtown access activities.
The City Council requested that the staff identify other parking and downtown access activities
(Second Tier) that might be initiated after the First Per had been completed. Staff reviewed all of
the implementation activities identified in the draft PDAP (see Attachment C) and has identified
several that might be implemented. (All remaining items have been identified as "Third Tier.)
Recommended second tier items are briefly described below. It is the staffs intent to return to the
Council with recommendations or progress reports for each of the second tier items by February
2002.
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 8
a. Reduce monthly parking pass costs for high-occupancy vehicles.
Discussion. The City already provides free parking within parking garages for registered carpools
with three or more occupants. This program should be advertised and promoted as part of an
overall effort to achieve the objectives of the Parking Demand Reduction component of the PDAP.
Advertising and promotion is discussed under item c below. As previously noted; City staff
proposes to provide limited vanpool parking at the rear of the Palm Street Garage.
b. Improve Bicycle Access to the Downtown.
Discussion: At this time, staff has identified three components of this objective:
(1) Establishing a Bicycle Boulevard on Morro Street from Santa Barbara Street to the downtown.
The City Council has already authorized the distribution of RFPs for this project with
consultant responses due at the end of April 2001. State grant funds are generally available to
pay for this project, which will include the closure of the south end of Morro Street and the
installation of a traffic signal at the Santa Barbara — Upham intersection. Project benefits will
also include improved vehicle access to the City's newly established Railroad Transportation
Center on the south side of Santa Barbara Street.
(2) Constructing a bridge over Stenner Creek at Montalban Street. This project will enable a cross
connection between the Santa Rosa and Chorro Street corridors and provide an alternative, less-
trafficked route for bicyclists and pedestrians to the downtown. State grant funds, with a
modest local match, are available to pay for this project.
c. Establish an Advertising Program for Downtown PDR Activities.
Discussion: As noted in previous sections of this report, the success of any particular PDR activity
depends on information and encouragement reaching. the prospective participants — namely
downtown employees, and that it be provided on an ongoing basis.
How these activities are advertised and promoted can take a variety of forms. Strategies that make
direct and meaningful contact with intended participants, in combination with more traditional
methods (newsletters, TV and radio advertising, occasional promotional events, program brochures,
etc.), will be evaluated. Consultant services may be required to complete this task, depending on
the participation of other affected organizations (Ride-on Transportation, Chamber of Commerce,
SLODA, Rideshare Coordinator,etc.).
d. Encourage the County to establish a trip reduction program similar to the City's program.
Discussion. About three years ago the City Council established the Trip Reduction Incentive
Program (TRIP) that is applicable to the City government's workforce. This program has been.
successful in increasing employee use of alternative transportation. The City Administrative
Officer has already distributed a copy of the City's TRIP Program guidelines to David Edge,
County Administrative Officer and requested that this item be considered as part of the County's
i r
_
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 9
efforts to expand its administrative office complex. Mr. Edge has indicated that the County has
initiated a trip reduction program on a pilot basis and is now applying for grant funding to continue
the program. The CAO will periodically report to the Council on progress the County is making to
pursue this program goal.
e. Increase 2-hour parking in the commercial core and limit long-term parking
Discussion. This activity has already been accomplished. Long-term parking spaces have
generally been relegated to the periphery of the commercial core and adjoining mixed-use office
districts. (See next item.)
f. Increase long-term parking at the periphery of the downtown for employees.
Discussion. There continues to be some areas outside the commercial core (such as southem
segments of Higuera Street south of Nipomo Street) where curb parking is lightly used and the
meters limit parking to two hours. Staff will analyze these areas with the intent of increasing the
number of 107-hour metered spaces to provide additional employee parking.
g. Work with the SLODA to establish a program for discouraging habitual violators.
Discussion: A central performance requirement of any parking management program is that
parking spaces in high demand areas (those in the commercial core) tum over and provide access to
downtown patrons. Motorists who are habitual violators of time limits adversely impact the
availability of parking. City staff will work with the SLODA to establish standards for determining
who are the habitual violators and explore ways of discouraging this behavior.
S. CAO Recommendation #S: As a part of the Resolution setting fees, amend previous policy on
the use of Parking Fund to allow its initial use to pay for untested parking demand reduction
(PDR) activities on a pilot test case basis and its ongoing use to pay for proven PRD activities that
reduce the demand for downtown parking.
At its January 23, 2001 study session, the City Council supported the concept of using Parking
Fund revenues to pay for PDR activities and requested that this issue be brought back for resolution
within 90 days. Because it was a Study Session, no formal action could be taken so direction was
given to return in the 90-day period.
Parking Demand Reduction is simply a program that will try to reduce the demand for parking on
the existing supply of parking spaces in the downtown. This is very similar to the City's water
demand reduction program, in which the City offers various incentives to its citizens to reduce their
demand on the existing water supply. Keeping the same line of logic, the Parking Fund should be
used to fund PDR activities just like the Water Fund provides the funding for the water demand
reduction activities.
The major difference in the programs, and most probably at the heart of the current controversy, is
that while installing a water saving toilet is a known water reduction activity; supplying cheaper bus
/- 9
Council Agenda Report:First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 10
passes to encourage less parking demand has an unknown result. A previous City Council felt that
until known, and successful results measured, the General Fund should pay for such activities. For
those successful activities, continued funding was to be provided by the Parking Fund.
The key, in staff's view, is not which Fund is used for each activity but to make sure that the
public's money is spent wisely. A PDR activity that is not effective should be dropped, while one
that is successful should not only continue to receive funding but should be expanded and receive
additional funding. Since most of the PDR activities are largely unknown as to their effectiveness
in decreasing parking demand, it is critical that good monitoring and measuring systems be put in
place to make sure that any funds expended, are done so wisely. Thus, staff recommends that: a)
the Parking Fund is the logical choice to pay for PDR activities; b) that pilot or trial PDR activities
should only be approved, initially, and that such activities include good monitoring and
measurement systems and have deadlines for performance reviews; and c) that successful PDR
activities should be rewarded with continued funding while unsuccessful activities should cease.
A discussion of alternate funding strategies is presented in Attachment E.
Staff Recommendations. Amend previous policy on the use of Parking Fund to allow its initial
use to pay for untested parking demand reduction (PDR) activities on a pilot "test case" basis and
its ongoing use to pay for proven PRD activities that reduce the demand for downtown parking.
CONCURRENCES
At its April 2001 meetings, the Parking and Access Committee of SLODA took the following
actions:
1. Supported reducing the free time in downtown parking garages, increasing the maximum daily
fee charged in garages, and increasing various parking fees and fines including increasing the
cost of proximity cards charged for the Marsh Street Garage (CAO Recommendation#1).
2. Took no action on other pending PDAP issues but indicated that more SLODA participation is
appropriate before a formal position can be taken for the more controversial issues such as
using the Parking Fund for PDR activities(CAO Recommendation#5).
FISCAL IlVIPACTS
Of all the recommendations of this report, CAO Recommendation #1 provides additional Parking
Fund revenue, while CAO Recommendation #2 implements additional Parking Fund expenses.
The remaining recommendations will have funding implications in the future but are not a part of
this report. All fiscal impacts are assumed to accrue to the Parking Fund.
Thus, the total added revenue projected from the recommended changes is $205,500, with a net
benefit to the Parking Fund of $173,500, after deducting for the estimated maximum initial
allocation to the parking and transit promotion, and the buy-down program. However, as noted in
ID
Council Agenda Report: First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page-11 -
Table 1: Recommended Parking Rate and Fine Increases in Downtown Garages
Item Annual Revenue
Estimate
1. Reduce free time in parking garages $123,000
2. Increase maximum daily charge in garages $25,000
3. Increase fine for expired meters
4. Increase fines for overtime violations $50,000
5. Differential Garage Prox Card Fee $7,500
6. Advertising Campaign—Parking Spaces
and Transit Bus Buy-Down @ $1,000/mo. <$12,000>
7. Bus Pass Buy-Down(" <$19,600>
TOTAL $173,900
(1) Bus Buy-Down Program
"Gold Card"Transit Pass Budget:
First 3 Months Buy-Down Program") $1,260
Second 6 Months Buy-Down Program") $12,240
Final 3 Months Buy-Down Program $6,120
Total: $199620
Notes: a)Assumes less than 70 riders a month at$6.00 buy-down
b)Assumes 170 riders a month at$12.00 buy-down
the report, staff will work with other agencies to acquire grant funds that could offset Parking fund
costs and the SLODA has been encouraged to consider some contribution to the "Gold Card"
program.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may differ action on one or more of the CAD's recommendations and request
additional information from staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Resolution modifying various downtown parking fees and fines
Attachment B: Listing of parking fines charged by other communities
Attachment C: Listing of PDAP Implementation Activities
Attachment D: Preliminary parking in-lieu fee survey
Attachment E: PDR Funding Alternatives
Attachment F: Proximity Card Purchase statistics I:car/downtown access plan(l'tier implementation)O
I-/l
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 SERIES) ATTACHMENTA
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING REVISION TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN,AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF PARKING CITATION FEES,PENALTIES,
SURCHARGES,AND PROCESSING; AND ESTABLISHING PARKING FEES
AND HOURS FOR USERS OF THE CITY'S PARKING STRUCTURES; AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 8765 (1998)AND 8402 (1995)
WHEREAS, State law provides in Vehicle Code Section 40203.5 that cities establish the
amount of parking penalties, fees, and surcharges; and
WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City to recover administrative fees, parking
penalties, fees and collection costs related to civil debt collection, late payment penalties, and
other related charges; and
WHEREAS, State law and the issuing agencies authorize the adoption of uniform fees,
penalties, collection, adjudication process, authority to issue parking citations for California
Vehicle Code and local regulations, and to establish a compliance program for parking citation
processing; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide secure and user friendly parking for all users of the
parking structures; and
WHEREAS, the parking program needs to continue to be self-sufficient for its financial
commitments; and
WHEREAS, the City has the support of the Downtown Association to implement changes
in the parking fines, parking garage rates and hours; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify the use of Parking Fund revenues as they relate
to Parking Demand Reduction activities; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the staff report and held a public meeting on the
proposed changes to the parking fines,parking garage rates and hours.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Resolutions 8402 and 8765 are hereby rescinded.
SECTION 2. The City has implemented the required provisions for processing parking
citations and hereby establishes the penalties for parking violations, late payment penalties,
administrative fees, and other related fees for all parking violation codes as set forth in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Council Agenda Report: First Tier Implementation of draft PDAP Page 13
SECTION 3. The parking rate and hours for charging fees in the city's parking structures
shall be the first 60 minutes free and 50 cents per hour with a daily maximum of$5.00 per visit
from 8 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. each Monday,Tuesday, and Wednesday.
SECTION 4. The parking rate and hours for charging fees in the city's parking structures
shall be the first 60 minutes free and 50 cents per hour with a daily maximum of$5.00 per visit
from 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. each Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Sundays will be exempt
from any parking garage fees.
SECTION 5. The monthly fee for proximity cards (Proxcards) for the Marsh Street
Parking Structure shall be $50.00 per month. The monthly fee for proximity cards (Proxcards)
for the Palm Street Parking Structure shall be $40.00 per month. An increase of $5.00 per
month will be implemented at the Marsh and Palm Parking Structures,effective July 1, 2004.
SECTION 6. Program 6.1 of the Parking Management Plan is hereby amended to read as
follows: Parking fund revenues will be used to: a)maintain and expand parking operations and
supply and b) repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures. Pilot or
"test case" parking demand reduction activities may also be funded, provided that they are
also monitored, within a defined period of time, and success is measured. Those activities
deemed successful shall continue to receive funding, support and monitoring.
Upon motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2001.
ATTEST
City Clerk Mayor Allen K. Settle
APPROVED
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
l T'
Date 05/01/01 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PENALTY SCHEDULE
CODE&SECTION DESCRIPTION PENALTY
SLMC 10.12.030 REQUIRED OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS 45
SLMC 10.12.040 BICYCLE ON HIGHWAY-REGULATIONS 20
SLMC 10.12.050 INTERFERENCE WITH POLICEIAUTHORIZED OFFICER 80
SLMC 10.12.080 REPORT OF DAMAGE TO CERTAIN PROPERTY 75
SLMC 10.14.030 OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 45
SLMC 10.14.090 UNAUTHORIZED PAINTING ON CURBS 45
SLMC 10.16.010 OBEDIENCE TO TURNING MARKERS 75
SLMC 10.16.030 OBEDIENCE TO NO-TURN SIGNS 45
SLMC 10.16.040 SIGNAL CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS-RIGHT TURNS 45
SLMC 10.24.010 STOP SIGNS 20
SLMC 10.24.020 EMERGING FROM ALLEY,DRIVEWAY OR BUILDING 45
SLMC 10.28.010 DRIVING THROUGH FUNERAL PROCESSION 45
SLMC 10.28.020 COMMERCIAL VEHICLES USING PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS 45
SLMC 10.28.030 RIDING OR DRIVING ON SIDEWALK .45
SLMC 10.28.040 NEW PAVEMENT AND MARKINGS 20
SLMC 10.28.050 LIMITED ACCESS 20
SLMC 10.28.060 OBEDIENCE TO BARRIERS AND SIGNS 75
SLMC 10.28.070 ENTRANCE INTO INTERSECTION-OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC 20
SLMC 10.32.020 PED CROSSING IN BUSINESS DISTRICT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK 20
SLMC 10.36.020 STOPPING OR STANDING IN PARKWAYS PROHIBITED 20
SLMC 10.36.030 STOP/STAND/PARK IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 20
SLMC 10.36.040 NO PARKING ZONE-PROHIBITED PARKING 35
SLMC 10.36.050 USE OF STREETS FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES PROHIBITED 10
SLMC 10.36.060 PARKING DEMONSTRATION 10
SLMC 10.36.070 REPAIRING OR GREASING VEHICLE ON PUBLIC STREET 10
SLMC 10.36.080 WASHING OR POLISHING VEHICLES 10
SLMC 10.36.090 PARKING ADJACENT TO SCHOOLS 10
SLMC 10.36.100 PARKING PROHIBITED ON NARROW STREETS 10
SLMC 10.36.110 PARKING ON GRADES 10
SLMC 10.36.120 UNLAWFUL PARKING-PEDDLERS,VENDORS 10
SLMC 10.36.130 EMERGENCY PARKING SIGNS 10
SLMC 10.36.140 LARGE/COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING NEAR INTERSECTION 10
SLMC 10.36.150 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES 10
SLMC 10.36.160 NIGHTTIME PARKING OF VEH W/OPERATING AIR/REFRIGERATION 10
SLMC 10.36.200 PARKING IN A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA 20
SLMC 10.36.230 PERMITS-DISPLAY OF PERMITS 10
SLMC 10.36.233 PARKING IN YARD 10
SLMC 10.36.235 NO PERMIT LOT 15
SLMC 10.40.010 TIMED PARKING 10 MINUTES TO 10 HOURS 17
SLMC 10.40.020 BACKING INTO PARKING SPACE PROHIBITED 15
SLMC 10.40.040 PARKING PARALLEL ON ONE-WAY STREETS 8
SLMC 10.40.050 DIAGONAL PARKING 8
SLMC 10.40.060 PARKING SPACE MARKINGS 20
SLMC 10.40.070 NO STOPPING ZONE 8
SLMC 10.40.080 ALL NIGHT PARKING PROHIBITED(3-5am) 20
SLMC 10.44.020 CURB MARKING TO INDICATE NO STOPPING/PARKING REGS. 10
SLMC 10.44.030 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN YELLOW ZONE 35
SLMC 10.44.040 EFFECT OF PERMISSION TO LOAD/UNLOAD IN WHITE ZONE 20
SLMC 10.44.050 STANDING IN ANY ALLEY 20
SLMC 10.44.070 HANDICAPPED PARKING 275
SLMC 10.48.010 CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED IN CENTRAL DISTRICT 45
SLMC 10.48.020 ADVERTISING VEHICLES 20
SLMC 10.48.030 ANIMAL DRAWN VEHICLES 20
SLMC 10.48.040 TRUCK ROUTES 75
SLMC 10.48.050 COMM. VEHICLES PROHIBITED FROM USING CERTAIN STREETS 75
SLMC 10.48.060 MAX.GROSS WT.LIMITS OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STREETS 75
SLMC 10.52.040 PARKING METERS-OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES 10
SLMC 10.52.050 UNLAWFUL TO PARK.AFTER METER TIME HAS EXPIRED 12
SLMC 10.52.060 UNLAWFUL TO EXTEND TIME BEYOND LIMIT 2
SLMC 10.52.070 IMPROPER USE OF METER 2
SLMC 10.52.080 PARKING METERS/STANDARDS -PROPER USE 2
SLMC 10.52.110 MOTORCYCLE SPACES 2
CVC 5204(A) CURRENT TAB IMPROPERLY ATTACHED 76
CVC 21106(B) CROSSWALK-USE WHERE PROHIBITED 54
CVC 21113(A) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-MOVING 103
CVC 21113(B) VEHICLE OR ANIMAL ON PUBLIC GROUNDS-PARKING 20
CVC 21113 (C) DRIVEWAYS,PATHS,PARKING FACILITIES ON GROUNDS 20
CVC 21113 (F) MOTORIZED BICYCLES,SKATEBOARDS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY 103
CVC 22500.1 STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: FIRE LANE 75
CVC 22500(A) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: WITHIN INTERSECTION 20
CVC 22500(B) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON A CROSSWALK 20
CVC 22500(C) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: BETWEEN SAFETY ZONE 20
CVC 22500(D) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: W/IN 15' FIREHOUSE ENTRANCE 20
CVC 22500(E) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: PUBLIC/PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 20
CVC 22500(F) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON SIDEWALK 20
CVC 22500(G) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ALONG/OPPOSITE OBSTRUCT 20
CVC 22500(H) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: ON ROADWAY SIDE OF VEHICLE 20
CVC 22500(I) IMPROPER PARKING IN BUS ZONE 250
CVC 22500(7) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: IN TUBE OR TUNNEL 20
CVC 22500(K) STOPPING/STANDING/PARKING: UPON BRIDGE EXCEPT AUTH 20
CVC 22500(L) IMPROPER PARKING IN WHEELCHAIR ACCESS 250
CVC 22502(A) CURB PARKING 20
CVC 22502(B) PARKING OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC 20
CVC 22502(C) CURB PARKING-WHEELS MORE THAN 18 INCHES FROM CURB 20
CVC 22504(A) UNINCORPORATED AREA PARKING 20
CVC 22505(A) PARKING ON STATE HIGHWAY WHERE SIGN POSTED 20
CVC 22505(B) POSTED NO PARKING-STATE HIGHWAY 20
CVC 22507 UNLAWFUL PARKING 20
CVC 22507.8(A) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED 275
CVC 22507.8(B) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED-OBSTRUCT/BLOCK 275
CVC 22507.8(C)(1) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED-ON LINES MARKED 275
CVC 22507.8(C)(2) PARKING IN SPACE FOR HANDICAPPED-PARKING LOT 275
CVC 22510 PARKING IN SNOW REMOVAL AREAS 20
CVC 22511.7 HANDICAP ZONE 275
CVC 22512 VEHICLE UNATTENDED 103
CVC 22513 TOW CARS-PARKING ON FREEWAY 20
r
CVC 22514 FIRE HYDRANTS 20
CVC 22515(A) UNATTENDED VEHICLES-SET BRAKES/STOP MOTOR 20
CVC 22515(B) UNATTENDED VEHICLES-SET BRAKES/WHEELS/PREVENT MOVE 20
CVC 22516 LOCKED VEHICLE 103
CVC 22517 OPENING AND CLOSING DOORS 103
CVC 22520 STOPPING ON FREEWAY 20
CVC 22520.5 VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 103
CVC 22520.5(A) VENDING ON FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY 103
CVC 22521 ILLEGAL TO PARK ON RAILROAD TRACKS 20
CVC 22522 PARKING NEAR SIDEWALK ACCESS RAMPS 275
CVC 22523(A) VEHICLE ABANDONMENT 270
CVC 22523(B) VEHICLE ABANDONMENT 270
CVC 22526(A) BLOCKING INTERSECTION PROHIBITED-ANTI-GRIDLOCK 50
CVC 22526(B) BLOCKING INTERSECTION 50
CVC 22650 UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF UNATTENDED VEHICLE 103
CVC 22651(B) VEHICLE PARKED/LEFT STANDING TO OBSTRUCT TRAFFIC 103
CVC 22658.5 TOW COMPANY-REPORT DAMAGE 103
CVC 22658(L) TOW COMPANY-ILLEGALLY REMOVING VEHICLE 103
CVC 22951 PARKING LOT-STREET AND ALLEY PARKING 20
CVC 22952(A) PARKING LOT-TOWING OR REMOVAL 103
CVC 22952(B) PARKING LOT-TOWING OR REMOVAL 103
l —/Ab
Parking Fines Charged by Other Communities AT` ACHIrWE T B
Fine Fine FineFine Fine Fine Fine
'LO CP Mont. Si SB Sc SR Avg.
Exp. Meter $10 $10 $20 $23 W $12 $15 $15
OT Parkin $1 $10 $20 $23 $20 $12 $20 $17
CP-Cal Poly CR -Cannery Row DT-Downtown Mont. Monterey SJ-San Jose
SB-Santa Barbara SC-Santa Cruz SR-Santa Rosa
SLO *CP *Mont. Mont. SJ SB SC SR Avg.
DT CR
Free 90 0 60 0 0 75 0 60 36
Hourly $0.50 n/a $1.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.93
Daily Max. $3. $1.75 $8.00 $12.00 $9.50 $10.00 $5.00 $7.50 $7.09
IMonthly $46.001 $14.001 $30.00 n/a $75.001 $75.001 $31.00F$64,00 $47.00
*Monthly Permits are for employees
CP-Cal Poly CR -CanneryRow DT-Downtown Mont. Monterey SJ -San Jose
SB-Santa Barbara SC-Santa Cruz SR -Santa Rosa
PDAP IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES ATTACHMENT C
Fiscal Measures:
Tier 1 Eliminate the maximum charge limit for garage parking.
Tier 1 Reduce free parking in garages from 90 minutes to 60 minutes.
Tier 1.5 Increase the in-lieu parking fee charged to new development to better reflect the cost of
downtown parking. (* Might be ready for introduction within 120 days)
Tier 2 Reduce monthly parking ass costs for high-occupancy vehicles.
Tier 3 Limit free parking on Sundays to AM only.
Tier 3 Establish a program for DA financial participation in the parking program.
Parldng Demand Reduction Measures:
Tier 1 Transit pass subsidies for downtown employees.
Tier 1 Advertise the availability of preferential parking spaces in garages for car pools and
provide sufficient spaces to meet demand.
Tier 2 Improve bicycle access to the downtown. (Note: Morro Street Bike Boulevard is being
designed)
Tier 2 Establish an advertising program for downtown PDR activities
Tier 2 Encourage the County to establish a trip reduction program like the City's (City
Administrative staff have already pursued this item).
Tier 3 Van Pool fare subsidies for downtown employees.
Tier 3 Contract with vendor for downtown employee trip reduction planning and vanpool
services.
Tier 3 Evaluate the use of outlying parking lots by downtown employees with connecting shuttle
service.
Tier 3 Amend codes to require PDR activities for new development.
Parldng Management Measures:
Tier 1 Consider increasing parking fines for overtime violations.
Tier 2 Increase 2-hour parking in commercial core and limit long-term parking
Tier 2 Increase long term parking a periphery of downtown for employees.
Tier 2 Work with DA to establish program for discouraging habitual violators.
Tier 3 Provide sufficient staff to enable enhanced parking enforcement
Tier 3 Respond to citizen proposals to establish Residential Parking Districts in neighborhoods
adjoining the downtown
Increased Parking Supply Measures:
Tier 1 Continue to work with the Copeland brothers on the joint development of the Palm H
parking structure.
Tier 1 Continue to discuss with County officials a potential joint parking garage-transit center
project east of Santa Rosa Street.
Tier 1 =Begin Implementation or continue past Council-authorized efforts
Tier 2=Suggested Tier Activities (Review &bring back to CC by November 200 1)
Tier 3=Suggested Tier Activities (Schedule To Be Determined)
ATTACHMENT D
PARKING IN-LIEU FEE SURVEY
April 2001
CITY NEW CONSTRUCTION FEE COMMENTS
Carmel $49 980 1996-$27,520
Palo Alto $31,068 1996-$17,848-Changed to reflect
estimated costs of new garage(May
o to as-built costs
Walnut Creek $219831 1996-$16,373 New rate effective
511101
Beverly Hills $20180
Mountain View $13M00
Hermosa Beach $123,500 1996-$6,000 Recently built new
structure&fee changed
Berkeley $109000 City Council can implement if a
program is put into place to spend
the money in accordance with
AB 1600. To date no one has ever.
paid this amount
Palm Springs $9450
Claremont $000
Concord $8 500
Davis $89000 Sent copy. of their
resolution
Monterey $75,215 Sent copies of
Ordinances
Mill Valley $6,751
San Jose $5 674 City is currently involved in a
process that may change this fee in
the coming year.
San Luis Obispo -_ _ $4000
Santa Barbara $0 Utilizes assessment districts.
Santa Rosa $0 Wishes they had one
but the City Council
is not in favor of it..
AVERAGE FEE $139028
PDR Funding Alternatives
ATTACHMENT
In crafting a list of alternatives, staff used the structure of Policy 6.1 in adopted Parking Management Plan as
the basis for suggesting alternative policy wording.
Alternatives
a. Use Non-Parking Fund revenues to support the PDR program.
Parking fund revenues will be used exclusively to maintain and expand parking operations and repay
bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures. [Almost identical to current Parking
Management Plan Policy 6.1.1
b. Use Parking Fund revenues, with no restrictions, to support the PDR program.
Parking fund revenues will be used to maintain and expand parking operations, repay bonds that finance
the construction of parking structures, and pay for programs that reduce the demand for downtown
parking.
c. Use General Fund revenues for an initial three-year trial period, but commit to using Parking Fund
revenues after that time for PDR activities.
Parking fund revenues will be used to maintain and expand parking operations and repay bonds that
financed the construction of the parking structures. The General Fund will pay for the first three years
of the downtown Parking Demand Reduction (PDR)program. After the completion of this trial period,
Parking Fund revenues will be available to pay for downtown PDR activities.
d. Establish a formula for combining General Fund and Parking Fund revenues to support downtown
PDR activities (e.g. a 50150 match).
Parking fund revenues will be used to maintain and expand parking operations and repay bonds that
financed the construction of the parking structures, and pay for fifty percent (50%) of the cost of
programs that reduce the demand for downtown parking.
e. Rely on grant sources for PDR funding.
Parking fund revenues will be used exclusively to maintain and expand parking operations and repay
bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures. Programs that reduce the demand for
downtown parking will depend on grant funding.
With the exception of alternative e, all these options achieve the goal of identifying along-term stable
funding source for the PDR program. Staff does not support alternative a since most grant programs are
limited to capital projects only and will not support operating programs or specific services such as vanpool
'J
or transit subsidies. However, as with all alternatives, it is possible to combine some of the strategies listed
above. Staff is prepared to discuss these issues with the Council.
The Council should also note that the 1999-01 Financial Plan appropriates General Fund dollars to the
Transportation Division's operating budget to pay for the first two years of implementing the PDR program..
Depending on the policy option endorsed by the Council, the Council may choose to renew its general fund
support as part of the upcoming 2001-03 Financial Plan to support the program's fust two years, after which
time the Council's long-term policy preference (one of the alternatives listed above)could direct PDR
program funding. Or the Council could direct that the operating funds be transferred to the Capital budget,
which would have the same effect of extending their availability for the upcoming two years.
ATTACHMENT F
Parking Garage Proximity Card Purchase Statistics
The following is the breakdown of The City's current paying proximity card clients as of March 2001.
Monthly Proxcards purchased: 210
150 cards use the Palm Garage, which represents 36% of the current inventory of 417 spaces
60 cards use the Marsh Garage, which represents 24% of the current inventory of 252 spaces.
When the two garages are combined it represents 31% of the total inventory of 668 spaces in both garages.
However, it should be noted that not all cards are in the garage at the same time, and not all stay long-
term. Due to varied schedules and in and out traffic, the actual number of proximity card paying users in
the garages (at any one time) varies through the course of the day. As an example, Palm Street can vary
from 53 -120 users or 35% to 80% of the total cards allowed to use that facility. Marsh Street varies from
20—40 users or 30% to 75% of the total allowed there.
�-aa
74 f
Recalved:lS.Feb.01 06:37 FM From.UrdmowtrSender To:4135028580 , l =r4 a9 1 of
�l 7ol
C* SMSA =3asnax
DOWNTOMINPARraNGOFFICE
RESIOENTPARKINGPERMm
PURLICWORKBDEPARTMENT C0MMUTERLOTPE4Mrrs
DOWNTOwNPARRWO t' + '. -> �' �,�, 111OANACAPASTREET
!DOWNTOWN PAMNO..—,963-1501 :yi' 03�' ADMiNISTRATrVEOFFICE
TMPPERMITPARIQNO........988-4388 ;!11 M ° MGARDEN"EET
ADMIMSTRATION....._._......SS"388
$ "'} MAILINGADDRESS:
1118ANACAPASTREET
- -- ---.---- — -- SANTA aARaARA. CA 0[3101
- _ - RECEIVED FED 15 YMI
SUBJECT: STATUS UPDATE FOR LOT a PARKING STRUCTURE FROJECP' /L yr v
Dear Property owners and Neighbors of Lot 6:
In September 2000, we sent a letter providing Information on the City of Santa Barbara's
parking structure at Lot e, a ®tent to our Pro pian for a ST5•spaos
with you to answer your questions and eoncenu�andrcroorICIAMte Improvements
roveeme ts to intent to develop a dialogue
� Your property with the Lot 8
construction.To continue this effort,we will be holding 41,96 Block Meeting of all Interested progeny owners And
h1Mt2as tenants adjacent to Lot 6 on WAgD_geday. February 21 2001 frnrrr 2 n _3bp n, ColleiL
Law. 20 East Vlctgrta SWad The College of Law was gracious to provide their facmty to minimize tima away from
your business.
The project is to be funded by the Redevelopment &�using tax Increment financing. it will not require
prop" owner assessments. The proposed structure will pro— a many long-term benefits to all businesses in
this area to accommodate Customers and clients. Many features of the project will provide much more thari just
parking spas.The project will Include:
❑ A bicycle station capable of accommodating over 300 bicycles with an attendant,
n A public counter for sale and Issuance of Alternative Transportation services such as free bus passes for
Downtown employees,
o A common trash and recycling facility,and
a A paseo system favoring pedestrians and allowing for trash and delivery trucks.
The agenda for the meeting is provided as an attachment and we look forward to meeting with you.
Sinc�eQro/I
rw�e-ewerrorequott PW M+
George cath ROUTING -
Streets,Parking&Transportation Operations Manager REQUEST
Plans
Enclosure: Meeting Agenda ❑ Run T„
cC Mayor and Councii ❑ HANDLE f
Sandre Tripp-clones,City Administrator ❑ APPROVE
David H.Johnson,Public works Director and —
Bettle Hannon,Acing City Planner ❑ FORWARD
Homer F.Smith iI,PWkiflWTMP Superintendent ❑ RETURN `
Downtown Parking Committee(Lori Pedersen) _
Brice Bturtworth P.E.Penfield&Smith,101 Ear ❑ KEEP OR DISCARD
❑ R!►n>:w wrTH ME
M1L*ERSNSMI TH=No 6 PrayxAl at 6 910M Mottling 2-01.doa Date S'O
f"
MITIGATION
ENVIROGEN NETS NSF FUNDING FOR MTBE MITIGATION
ivirogen,Inc. (NASDAQ: ENVG) has been awarded a grant of remediation of MTBE at an active service station site in New
;500,000 by the National Science Foundation(NSF)to continue Jersey,as well as with the U.S.Department of Defense to demon-
work it has successfully demonstrated for the remediation of strate in situ biodegradation at the U.S. Naval Base at Port
gasoline oxygenate MTBE. The company had previously Hueneme,California The Port Hueneme project is a national test
ived NSF funding for in situ remediation of MTBE contamina- site for MTBE treatment technology and is a part of the U.S.
through bioaugmentation. Environmental Protection Agency MTBE Technology ]
1•his important grant extends Envirogen's MTBE remediation Demonstration Project of field-ready technologies. Envirogen has 1�
Tam, which presents a range of appropriate solutions to the also developed reactor-based systems to degrade MTBE and the
cetplace for the site specific remediation of MTBE contami- related compound tertiary-butyl alcohol (IBA).
d groundwater,"says Robert S. Hillas,president and CEO.
nvirogen has additional contracts with a major oil company for Envirogen Inc,phone 609.936.9300,Internet www.envirogen.com
EMISSIONS
RESEARCHERS FIND THAT AIR QuALYIY MODELS NEED IMPROVEMENT
^omputer air quality models used phere and aerosols can extinguish light through
6,./by local governments for Researchers have absorption and scattering.Because the amount
stablishing air pollution,regu- discovered that ozone concentration of light reaching the lower atmosphere is vari-
ations are not always as accu- is extremely sensitive to reactions able, the photolysis rates are similarly vari-
ate as regulators would like.An able.The impact is a reduction of the rate of
(fort funded by the California Aif driven by sunlight certain smog forming reactions in the lowest lay-
tesources Board (CARS) now seeks to ers of the troposphere and an enhancement of the
esolve this.In the program,researchers at the U.S. rates in the higher layers.
)epartment of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laborato- Using a mathematical method,researchers have been able
y and the University of California at Berkeley have been study- to separate the factors affecting smog into components and
ag photochemical characteristics of air pollution in Southern determine which components are most significant. Aerosols
.alifornia. accounted for 91%of the variability in the data while the con-
Researchers have discovered that ozone concentration is centration of ozone accounted for 8%of the observed variabili-
xtremely sensitive to reactions driven by sunlight. Photolysis ty.The results indicate that air quality models need to be mod-
eactions initiate decomposition by sunlight of chemicals such ified so that ozone and aerosol concentration are better taken
s formaldehyde and nitrogen dioxide. Particles in the atmos- into account.
FACTOIDS
U.S. PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION. 1970-2020
for to the oil price shocks in the
970s, transportation accounted for 20
of U.S. petroleum consumption. The
sportation sector is dependent on oil
15% of its fuel use, and by 2000, this a
ion had grown to 67%. With energy V 1s
in this sector growing faster than in m hansportatlon
other sector, the U.S. Energy Infor- I
on Administration projects that trans- 0
ation will consume 18.5 million bar- L 10
of oil per day in 2020 and account for53%
Df petroleum demand. c tnduslrial
C �...�..��'►
re: U.S. Department of Energy, 5 i�♦ �,,�..��weewowww /
gy Information Administration, `
W999:Annual Energy Review, �- -y Residential&Commerolal
�.�...• .►........ "meow -�
es 5.12a and b;2000-2020.Annual o ®Ctrla unlit •—•`�•"'�•—•
gy Outlook 2001,Appendix Tables,
e 11. 1970 1980 tsso 2000 2010 2020
GREEN CAR JOURNAL 9 APRIL 2001
DATE 5-1-01 ITEM #.
__f• NCIL El CD IR Jean E. Anderson
E o N DIR PO Box 12858
ffr,AZA0 ❑ F 5,E-CHIEF an Luis Obispo, CA 93406-2858
RNEY P?PW DIR 805-545-9003
CLERhHEA0HEAD4 C3 POLICE CHF <slohpver@charter.net>
® D $ CJ AEC DIR
" Le-❑ UTIL R DIR
❑ HR'DI
1 May 2001 '
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
Re: PDAP and public transportation needs"of San Luis Obispo
Dave Romero (The Tribune, 4/26/01) is worried about a camel moving into his
tent. As long as the camel knows you're there, why not invite him in — and deal with
the whole camel?
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Romero is not really interested in
subsidizing better public transportation or that he prefers "cheap" and plentiful
parking for automobiles in downtown San Luis Obispo.
The fact is that there is no "cheap" public parking: we all pay for so-called cheap
parking — whether we ever park in one of the downtown parking lots or garages or
not. The initial cost for each space in the proposed Marsh Street garage addition has
been estimated at about $40,000 per space. According to other sources in 1997111,
such costs should be between , 7,000 to , 20,000 per space.
Parking in the San Luis Obispo parking garages is not priced anywhere near
parking garages in other cities, making it appear to be cheap. However, it makes far
more sense to encourage people to use public transit instead of subsidizing more
automobile traffic in our downtown.
It's interesting that in the same issue of The Tribune (Thursday, 26 April), the
"GO" section featured a piece about a bicycle messenger making a case for bicycles
over cars (page C8). He notes, "If we made motorists pay for their use, driving would
be the same luxury today that it was in the 1920s." In many European countries,
public transportation is so efficient and inexpensive, and walking and cycling are so
much safer, that many people don't even need cars (and many don't own them).
I would much rather we subsidize decent, affordable, efficient public
transportation than invite more cars to pollute and clog our downtown. Why should we
penalize everyone for the needs of one segment of our population. Let car owners pay
a fairer share of the cost of their use of public property and space — and encourage
more people to take a bus, walk from a greater distance, carpool and shuttle, or cycle
to work or shop. We'd all be more healthy— and we might be able to afford the
cultural center that would benefit far more residents and visitors alike. RECEIVED
incerely,
MAY 01 2001
J an An erson SLO CITY COUNCIL _.
Alvord, Katie. Divorce your Car!: Ending the love affair with the automobile. New
Society Publishers, 2000. Page 107 in chapter 9: "Not a cheap date".
MrFTING AGENDA J
c -aL ITEM #
April 30,2001
NCILCD R
dL7 ad N DIR
City Council Member, 0" 0 . ❑ FI HIEF
Z A NEY W DIR
LERK CRIa 0 POLICE CHF
❑QEPT HEAD 0 REC DIP
LJ' ® UTIL DIP
You appreciate brevity,so here goes. G HR DIP
Please consider the following suggestions for you Draft Parking and Access Plan(PDAP)...
1. Increase the fines for expired parking meters.
2. Increase the fines for repeat offenders. (Not sure what mechanism to implement here.)
3. Increase the frequency of"chalking tires" to reduce employee abuse of meters. .
4. Remember that Tourism does not usually use Alternate Transportation Programs.
If you have already considered these, then add my support.
Thanks,
Frank Merson
San Luis Obispo
A�+C1,111 A
►ecc't''"'r
RECEIVED
MAY 01 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
T/T'd 9G6 ON 9866LVSSOS S9N0- WdSE:£ T002'T 'AtM
lYIGG I IIV�7 „V��
7E S-1-01ITEM; _
c o u n a l m E m o Ra n o u m
April 30, 2001
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Parking Revenue Projection Corrections for May 1, 2001 Meeting
It has been brought to our attention that there was a spreadsheet error in the revenue figures for
prior fiscal years that was submitted as a redfile item to Council for the May 1, 2001 City
Council meeting. Attached is a corrected version of that attachment.
All of the individual numbers reflected in each of the various line items of income were correct
however, the bottom line summation did not total accurately. The corrected totals for all three
years are now shown correctly on the attached sheet.
[RA
NCIL p Cf�g DIR
IN DIR
FI�CHIEF
RNEI' �W DIRK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHFHEADS O REC DIR
D UTIL DIR
❑ HR DIR
RECEIVED
MAY 01 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
J.
Parking Fund Revenues for past 3 fiscal years in actual dollars
_ _
Revenues '1997=98 1998-99 199940 2000-01
.. As of 3-31-00
Investments $292,900 $227,900 $254,400 $234,423
Parking Meters
Lots $399,200 $4451400 $450,500 $297,213
Streets $704,500 $792,100 $769,200 $573,706
Subtotal $1,103,700 $1,237,500 $1,219,700 $870,920
Parking Fines $383,000 $454,800 $446,900 $359,058
Garages (daily) $277,300 $284,700 $273,000 $215,759
Long-term
Prox cards(50%) $173,000 $196,400 $210,100 $153,742
10-hr permits(40%)
Lot 14(7%)
Meter bags(2%)
Validations(1%)
Leases
RR square $23,556 $24,492 $25,189 $19,410
Copelands $91,844 $108,208 $121,811 $86,873
Total $115,400 $132,700 $147,000 $106,283
In-lieu fees $92,300 $799600 $739500 $871403
Other services
=Meter bags, $20,800 $17,500 $1000* $74
validations,etc.now
deposited in long
term account
Total $294589400 $296319100 $296259600 $2,027,662
Parkingfundrevenue3years
mF.F.1 mu nucnuh
DATr - -01 (TEM#
�����������������►►������ ,������� council m e m o iza n o u m
AO D DIR
CAO IN DIR
❑ RE CHIEF
May 1, 2001 ORNEY VW DIR
CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
13T H DS ❑ REC DIR
TO: City Council G UTIL DIR
❑ HR DIR
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO .,,,,
SUBJECT: Item 1: Additional Information Regarding the Use of General Funds to
Support Some PDAP Programs
Based on some public inquiries; Vice-Mayor Ewan has asked why the staff has not spent any of
the General Funds budgeted in 1999-01 on parking demand reduction programs (PDR)? The
answer to this question is straightforward: Because the PDAP did not return to the City Council
during the 1999-01 Financial Plan, so no new PDR programs were formally adopted. Thus,
while $135,000 in General Funds were in the budget (over two years),in the absence of Council-
approved programs, staff did not believe it had the authority to spend those funds.
By way of background, until January 23, 2001, the last time the Council took action on the
PDAP was in May 1999 — about two months before the initiation of the 1999-01 Financial Plan
period. The Council did not approve specific programs during the May 1999 review, but rather
provided direction for further amendments to the draft PDAP document. The formal adoption of
the PDAP was included among the Council's 1999-01 Major City Goals. At that time, it was
anticipated that the PDAP would be formally adopted prior to the end of calendar year 1999.
However, for a variety of reasons, including great community conflict concerning the PDAP and
the Marsh Street Garage expansion, it was determined that the timing was poor for final
consideration of the PDAP. Therefore, the Public Works Director was instructed not to return
the PDAP to Council until further notice. The fact that PDAP implementation target dates were
"slipping", and that specific programs were pending formal adoption, was no secret. For
example, the PDAP was reported on in four separate goal status reports provided to the City
Council over the two-year financial plan period (See Attachment 1, February 2000 example;
similar reports were also provided in October 1999, June 2000 and December 2000). These
status reports are public documents that were included in materials distributed as part of City
Council meeting"packets"(e.g. the Mid-Year Budget review).
On September 1, 2000, the former CAO provided the then-City Council with the attached
memorandum suggesting that the Council complete its review and adoption of the PDAP in
November 2000, prior to the end of that Council's term (Attachment 2). The Council initially
concurred with this memorandum, even suggesting that other advisory bodies be involved in the
session (Attachment 3). However, on October 3, 2000, the Council ultimately agreed to defer the
PDAP until after the new City Council was seated (Attachment 4). In December 2000, the new
City Council reviewed the initial City Council calendar for the first three months of 2001 and
agreed to reactivate the PDAP in January. As mentioned at the beginning of this memorandum,
the new Council took up the PDAP on January 23, 2001. RECEIVED
MAY 01 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
A second question has also been asked: Doesn't the existing Parking Management Plan provide
the staff with sufficient authorization to have spent the budgeted General Fund money? A core
purpose of the PDAP was to reexamine and amend many of the programs set forth in the 1995
Parking Management Plan. It was staff's clear perception, and we believe the Council's as well,
that we were not to independently launch new demand reduction programs, regardless of the
funding source, without having those programs affirmed through the formal adoption of the
complete PDAP (some programs had already been underway for many years and required no
added funding—e.g. preferential parking in the garages for carpools).
In January 2001, the Council agreed to a different, incremental strategy of adopting the PDAP by
approving various "tiers" of programs. The first program tier is now before the City Council,
and the subsidized bus pass program is the first to require added funding. Consistent with staff
taking its lead from the Council, staff is requesting Council endorsement of this new program
and permission to fund it, whether ultimately supported by the Parking Fund or General Fund.
No further funds will be spent on this program until the Council reviews program effectiveness
and endorses its' continuance. Of course, this decision — and any future decisions to fund other
new PDR activities—will be considered publicly with ample opportunities for public review and
comment.
I hope this answers the questions that have been raised.
Attachments:
1. February 2000 Status Report
2. Memo from CAO, September 1, 2000
3. Excerpt from September 5, 2000 Action Update
4. Excerpt from Council Minutes, October 3, 2000
is o Y
c, °' c
h
CL
ON
y � h
d
l- � R1 C
CAO
� y
>1 0i
m q' •: to ca
U •y b •y Q V1 d � '� '�,
ou
a ¢
2 — o p a
>' N N u"
N o�C � . 0. s co °'
g a ti cz R
4 Q r d y G C L b
Q C 4 a ' E `v r
h y Y d Q
od E d
m a d v v ca E a
W g .� a 3
g E m m e a 3 0
°4
CO) %) a o, = 3
`W .�
= O r V O w C F V y
E d •y O N oLu to
r y
V ra Q �, W � a o q a
7 vaI C c Q a o C~Y. "� > v U
Z E to a F > = d
cr 'C d y = W
ICSQ a+ d 3 � ° 9 E
r r N Z w V •_ -4) N w o ` 1a
Z �C Q W O p q
a Tr eon W b0 � E c 0 g a
Na E.WM a
��A�o h 'p� '� V :. a '-' g o •� a6 E W =
L0. Q E �`p m o, cY o 0
Q r h r Z � � O to = p t pa V O
,3 o ba %0a
o
e3 v a O ,. a m a p a o
Q
bola Im
0 �° to o` a o _
CS
Q rr .'Y.. O OCbe ='c Go
T" 'w y
> r ab oaai � E � � Co .ap3in � .. a
(�„ y+•� -Q ,moo �p C G a w m p fsS E ,w w v
a � m w °�' K dA' o e ap m e
d1 ry d m W �Sy , 2N0d4) qa gam'
a � 7 U� y � �„ � pp •'J'. Cy.�. m c) .� m �... � 7a1 C C o1
; U .ac3 ., � a � U to
Q h w csa
N �" v� o Q a, A+ O E Q • e
oe
O\ Xtj. ld
L 'r 1u mn •rCC
Ci w
�" xb CC • �c C
y o> •'� �r� d
... ci. m C
C
cc eCG7
I L O
p a L f7 o c
1 p = L o m o 0
1 N v ..1 n tea,
c el ° � .
m
E
W ... � � w c\
U. V 3 y A
e
N 3 d
d o c
I rz
> q
U. o
V Q, r o o 'd
I tiJ =
9 ~
o
-be
�
m
O �
Qt L4
DO� � O •'3 vl O p =
' Z •� ..' y � O'.d U °' ao
m0
J C d y cc es
aV e a eo Qs a „ y � � �'
,� i W � a o m " In
' 4 G a3 £ " 'z : S .0
m d
•�. L Q O L tr O m
Q 04
o �#
0 = = a
o w
m o = y vt
• '� L. r• V O m m � O V r v ..+ � r1�.
D s�• = ° � � q a � s g 6 E
o °
(� '�„' h � �.gyp' pQa O • • d � • • • • • ti • e • •
I ��
r
I
LL, U pC ai p O
E
c e
I •� �� � C o% 0000 � rn + e e
v ► .op ` r- inc. C14 n o 'o
o ri: o m %0
ti ° ' 0
-"Q VG v
Y S µ O U
V N R
obi O d
O
0is
C c
QO
N l p s E w
u -Z,,- T
es
.,
1 / Q q0 r h
1i. h r fA
wO
{l Q
LL
Y
N r. eu 1w+ O
W m 'o�� E �= ►. a
> 3: h
yam, Y.
QO
V � y 4)
1 ui
' o 42 c
m e
'et a °' 0 .0
0 sa 'w p
Zr CS a' a"i U o o
d
h
N o u
a O O ♦ ,.. a y ?�... h U V y _
Iz
Q V i �" y c 3 � '3 -91 d Sb w
o. S. -Aa. c. a
'W m es �
Q .4y ai a� a o = o a u w qo
� =
cj
O °a a e �L o 'e o. o. C o o E w
N
a �
o SS m
Q �, •4 W CE G.
N .�' a O Q
r
council m E m o iza n b u m
711
September 1, 2000
TO: City Council
FROM: John
SUBJECT: Parking and Downtown Access Plan
During the Study Session with the Downtown Association on Tuesday evening, some individual
Council members made reference to the long-awaited Parking and Downtown Access Plan
(PDAP). Given this indication of interest, along with the near-completion of staff work
following up the City Council's last guidance on the issue, I suggest that we bring this matter
back to the City Council in the near future in order to give the current City Council the
opportunity to complete.the adoption of the PDAP, since it is this Council which has been
primarily involved with this Plan.
In terms of the things that seem to be "brewing", we have the initiation of the Downtown
Strategic Plan, the work in progress related to the transit transfer center, the joint MOU with the
County to study parking, the Chinatown/Court Street project, and a potential growing interest in
updating the Downtown Physical Concept Plan over the next two years. In addition, it is my
impression, based on comments made during the Study Session, that there is also a sincere
interest in greater collaboration, and less confrontation.
Therefore, I have instructed the Public Works Department staff to make every effort to bring the
PDAP to the City Council prior to the end of your tern. I envision the program coming to you in
two steps. The fust step shall be a Study Session as a general "refresher" on the PDAP; the
second step will be a Council meeting agenda item geared toward adoption. For a variety of
reasons, including workload, I envision these two meetings taking place in November.
Any thoughts or comments on this planned approach please let me know.
cc: Mike McCluskey l .
Tun Bochum
Terry Sanville
Ken Hampian
Council Agenda U Tuesda,,;'September 5, 2000
Action Update
Council Member Marx requested specific data ground water supply on the Dalidio
property. Council directed staff to prepare a written response to the request before
the Dalidio project comes to Council. -
Council Member Marx commented on City Administrative Officer Dunn's memo
regarding the Parking and Downtown Access Plan dated September 1, 2000 in
which he suggests a refresher study session for the Council. She suggested that
the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, Mass Transportation
Committee, Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Downtown Association be invited
to attend. Council concurred and directed staff to extend the invitation.
A. ADJOURNED.
Council Minutes*ober^3;2000; http://www.slocity.org/cityclerk/minutes/2000/100300min.hti
City Clerk).
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EOC).
Council Member Marx reported that although EOC CalWerks Program has received funds,there are still
approximately 300 children without childcare. She also noted that the Homeless Shelter administrative staff
is searching for a site to build permanent headquarters.
COMMUNICATION
City Clerk Price asked the City Council to review the tentative agendas for the meetings in November and
requested formal action to move the first meeting of the month from Tuesday, November 7,2000 to Thursday
November 9, 2000 due to the election. In addition,she recommended that the Council set a special meeting
date of Tuesday, November 14,2000, if determined necessary.
i&C.TION: 1) Meeting date changed. 2) Parking_arid-Downtown.Access;P...lan-
.anddth"e Dowtown-Transportation—Center items deferreduntil afterthe.new
Council.takes officea3) No action taken to set a special meeting.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Settle adjourned the meeting at
approximately 9:20 p.m.to Tuesday,October 17,2000 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber,990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
Lee Price, C.M.C.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 10/17/00
LP:dr
5 of 6 4/30/01.3:41 PN
v -nNG AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416
David E. Garth, President/CEO
RECEIVED
MAY 01 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL KCLERK/Opla
❑ CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
❑ FI CHIEF
May 1, 2001 �W DIR
ef 0 POLICE CHF
❑ DFPT HEADS ® REC DIR
Q� -rkg CO UTIL DIR
® HR DIR
Mayor Allen Settle
Members of the City Council ✓ kd-�
City of San Luis Obispo ✓ 5A-W�
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members,
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has invested considerable time and
discussion to Business Item 1. on tonight's Council agenda, i.e., First Tier
Implementation of the Draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP). We are in
support of reducing the free time in downtown parking garages, increasing the
maximum daily fee charged in garages, and increasing various parking fees and fines
effective July 1, 2001. We agree that these are reasonable measures that will increase
parking revenues and may result in more effective utilization of available parking
downtown.
Traditionally, the Chamber has been opposed to using Parking Enterprise Funds for
Parking Reduction Measures. Our position paper written in September of 1997 as a
response to the Downtown Parking &Access Study states that the Chamber assumed
and supported the following: 1) the expansion of the Marsh Street Parking Structure
has been approved by Council and will proceed in a timely manner and 2) the Parking
Enterprise Fund will only be used to fund measures resulting in the construction and
maintenance of parking spaces
After careful consideration and in recognition of the importance of Parking Demand
Reduction Measures to the vitality and economic viability of the downtown, the San
Luis Obispo Chamber would support using Parking Enterprise Fund monies for
Parking Demand Reduction under the following conditions:
e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com
r, O
• The General Fund monies in the amount of$135,000 previously allocated are
used for implementing PDR activities that are to be carefully monitored and
measured for effectiveness.
• A formal review process to include all stakeholders, that is, city staff, council
members, the Chamber and the Downtown Association, would be in place to
evaluate the success rate of these programs.
• Those pilot or "test case" PDR activities that are verified as successful would be
continued and those proven not to reduce parking demand significantly would
be dropped.
• Proven PDR programs would be funded by the Parking Enterprise Fund within
reasonable limits which would not jeopardize the construction and
maintenance of parking spaces.
We believe that this represents a common sense and fiscally responsible approach
and would ask that you give it some regard in your deliberations tonight.
Sincerely,
f(X-JV
Dave Juhnk
Chairman of the Board
CC: Ken Hampian
Mike McCluskey
WE I ING AGENDA J
D/ _i 5-69/ ITEM#._..C..._
�UNCIL C CDD DIR
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FAYTORNEY
p C FIN DIR
A20 ❑ FSE CHIEF
From: Dave Romero � �W DIR
CLERKlORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ D PT HEA S ❑ REC DIR
Subject: Proposed Parking Changes ❑ UTIL DIR
ff� C HR DIR
At its Mayl, 2001 meeting the City Council will consider a number
of parking changes, most of which are operational in nature. The
changes will increase costs for parkers, however I believe they will
be accepted so long as the public believes the funds will be wisely
used for parking. Serious propriety issues occur however, with one
staff recommendation, the use of Parking Enterprise Funds for
UNPROVEN Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) measures.
In my view the viability of downtown is dependent on ample,
reasonably priced parking. City Councils have adopted long range
planning and funding measures to expand the Marsh ST. Structure and
to construct new structures on Palm St., beyond Santa Rosa St., near
Wells Fargo and near Mission Ballfield. All are subject to
acquisition, development and funding problems. Unless the Parking
Fund is carefully managed, the City simply won't have enough money
to keep up with needs. And Downtown - the heart of our City, will
suffer.
Staff is recommending a change from current City policy which
limits expenditure of Parking Enterprise Funds to PROVEN measures.
This was a wise decision, however staff has elected to spend
nothing from the $135,000 budgeted in the 1999-2001 from the
General Fund to give a trial to experimental measures.
Staff is not proposing a trial with proven Demand Reduction
measures similar to low flow toilets, low flow shower heads or
drought tolerant landscaping The transit pass buy-down program
has no successful past history, will require considerable staff time
to implement and measure, and will continue a controversy which
should be laid to rest. How will the City know if the program is
successful? Certainly the stakeholders representing downtown
should be included in setting the measures and judging success.
Recommendation:
Amend CAO Recommendation B) and Section 6 of the resolution to
reflect that only PROVEN PDR activities will be funded from the RECEIVED
Parking Fund. APR
30 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
IVIL.G 1 I11u nudmm�
ITEM
DAISan Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare
1150 Osos Street,Suite 206•San Luis Obispo•CA•93401 •Phone: (805)541-2277
: Fax: (805)781-1291 •Email:rideshare@rideshare.org•Website: www.rideshare.org
April 30, 2001
�NCIL ❑ CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
The Honorable Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council fa3'A�ARNEY ®'PW D RHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo fFLERK/ORIG Cl POLICE CHF
990 Palm Street O_ D T HEAP ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 934010 uT1L DR
_ _ ❑ HR DIR
Re: First Tier Implementation of the Draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP) ✓cii�
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare (SLO Rideshare) is a division of the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority, which operates the SLO Rideshare program on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Council
of Governments (SLOCOG). Rideshare's main goal and objective is to reduce the number of Single
Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs) in the region by promoting alternative ways to travel to work or school,
such as carpooling, vanpooling, using transit, bicycling, teleworking, walking, and shuttles.
In your discussions regarding the implementation of first tier measures of the PDAP, SLO Rideshare
offers the following points for your consideration.
1. Most subsidized bus pass programs were enacted only after a comprehensive, downtown
employee survey was completed to determine how employees are currently getting to work, who
could ride the bus and how much of a subsidy would be incentive enough to switch to transit.
While Staff's proposal to establish a bus pass baseline (Staff Report,pages 1-5 & 1-6, items 1-6)
may help kick-start the program, there should be a built-in evaluation method to determine how
many of the bus pass purchasers are making a mode switch from driving alone to using transit..
Perhaps each individual who buys a bus pass for the first time, from the start of the program,
should be surveyed to determine the previous mode of transportation and the reasons why they
are switching.
2. Subsidized bus pass programs have been implemented in several cities in the U.S. (Santa Barbara
is the closest) in the effort to relieve pressures placed on downtown parking availability caused
by downtown employees, however the majority of those programs offered their subsidy at, or
close to, 100% of the cost of a monthly bus pass. The Council should consider if a 25% discount
is sufficient enough to inspire someone into taking the bus.
3. Marketing of any alternative transportation program is an ongoing effort that takes experience,
patience, persistence, creativity and commitment. SLO Rideshare and Ride-On Transportation
(Ride-On) have a wealth of experience creating and maintaining marketing programs and
alternative transportation programs specific to employers and their employees. There are current
opportunities for additional grant monies that could be used to augment whatever program
funding your Council determines to set aside for First Tier PDAP measures. Rideshare
encourages the Council to direct Staff to work with Rideshare and Ride-On to determine what
grant opportunities are immediately available and then to work cooperatively with Rideshare and
Ride-On to implement First Tier PDAP measures. RECEIVED
APR 3 0 2001
Al n CITY rnI imr%ii
4. Rideshare has no quibwe with the use of Parking funds ($31,ti00 as indicated in Staff Report
page 1-11) or the use General Funds ($135,000 set aside in a previous budget year) for use for
PDR activities, however Rideshare suggests the funding be placed into a separate and distinct
TDM fund. It is important to note that many grant sources look for matching funds when
considering applications and a separate TDM fund, be it $31,000+/- or $135,000, would not only
look good from a grant perspective, but also would provide some certainty that PDR programs
have a sufficient period of time to be marketed, implemented and evaluated as to their success or
failure.
SLO Rideshare appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on this important issue and we are stand
ready and eager to work cooperatively with the City of San Luis Obispo in its efforts to implement
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) endeavors for the downtown. I can be reached at 781-4462.
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,,
" ( •
John M. Donovan
Program Manager
SLO Regional Rideshare
IYIILL I111%A
ATE 5"1-01 ITEM #-
San Luis Obispo City-County Library
P.O. Box 8107, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8107
995 Palm Street (805) 781-5991
Library Administration (805) 781-5784
P�UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
C�O p FIN DIR
April 30, 2001 ,-ASkO C3FPE CHIEF
�_ RNEY W DIR
LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
To Members of the City Council, City of San Luis Obispo ❑ DEPT HEP, ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
Re: SLO Downtown Public Parking
❑ HR DIR
As you consider the matter of public parking, please take into consideration the
use of the San Luis Obispo City-County Library. The SLO Library has 32,816
registered borrowers. Last year our library checked out 373,954 items.
In the Library's 1998 survey, only 38% of SLO library users agreed that the
Library has ample parking; 60% disagreed. In the opinion of SLO respondents to
the question"what are the best ways to improve your local library services,"
"increase available parking" placed third out of 10 choices. Of the respondents
who do not use the Library or use it infrequently, 15% indicated that difficulty
finding parking was the reason. Written comments included:
• "The lack of parking at SLO library makes it difficult for seniors to use."
• "Parking for the SLO library needs to be addressed!"
• "Please inform the city council and city planners that in order for a
successful relationship between the community and the library, adequate
parking space is a necessity. Have you noticed most cities have parking
(free) that go with a city library?"
One hour of free parking is not sufficient for many library users-people doing
research, families bringing their children to story time programs, students doing
homework, and volunteers working in the library. On behalf of our patrons, I urge
you to keep the 90 minutes of free parking. Thank you for thinking of the Library
as you consider the matter of public parking.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED qw� k,6-
APR 3 0 2001 Judy Rohr
SLO CITY COUNCIL Chief Librarian
4EEnNG AGENDA
-.SATE�ITEM #_,
council memoizanOum
Date
TO: City Council J���
FROM Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer4
Timothy Scott Bochum; Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Parking Fund Financial Analysis and Issues Paper
The Council will be considering issues relating to the Downtown Parking Management Program
and the draft Parking Downtown Access Plan (PDAP) at its meeting of Tuesday May 1, 2001. I
thought it would be helpful to resend you a copy of the previously prepared issues paper
regarding the Parking Enterprise fund that was prepared by Bill Statler. This document is an
excellent reference on historical issues as well as current (and past) policies on parking revenues
and expenditures. I have also included a more recent breakdown of current Parking Fund revenue
sources and amounts.
Some of the key areas include the section on "Allowed Parking Fund Uses"which starts on page
2 and also the section on "Residential Parking Districts" on page 5, which shows that the last
time we checked, the residential permit district areas paid for kl�WUNCIL ❑ CDD DIP
0�- AO 0 FIN DIR
f�,GAO ❑ PRE CHIEF
Er6PFORNEY ErPW DIP
ff-CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
13 D T EADS ❑ REC DIP
40 UTIL DIP
M HPA®In
7
✓�clatr.,tiv
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
i
Parking Fund.Revenues for past 3 fiscal years in actual dollars
Revenues 1997=98 1998-99 1999=00 2000-01
As of 3-31-01
Investments $292,900 $227;900 $254,400 $234,423
Parking Meters
Lots $399,200 $445,400 $450;500 $297,213
Streets $704,500 $792,100 $769,200 $M,706
Subtotal $1,103,700 $1,237,500 $1,219,700 $870,920
Parking Fines $383,000 $454,800 $446,900 $359,058
Garages (daily) $277,300 $284,700 $273,000 $215,759
Long-term
Proxcards(50%) $173,000 $196,400 $210,100 $153,742
10-hr permits(40%)
Lot 14(7%)
Meter bags(2%)
Validations(I%)
Leases
RR square $23,556 $241492 $25,189 $19,410
Copelands $91,844 $108,208 $121,811 $86,873
Total $115,400 $132,700 $147,000 $106,283
In-lieu fees $92,300 $797600 $73,500 $87,403
Other services
*Meter bags, $20,800 $17,500 $1000* $74
validations,etc.now
deposited in long-
term account
Total $294589400 $296829000 _ : $297519400 $2,027,307
Parkingfundrevenue3 years
IIII
IlIgJ1111p11IIIV�111�1 city O f
san Luis owspo
Parking Fund Financial Policies
May 1,2000 differently depending on their purpose. Enterprise
funds are used to account for services that are similar
The purpose of this "white paper" is to address four to private sector activities where the intent is to
concerns that have recently emerged about the finance or recover the cost of providing services
Parking Fund: primarily through user charges.
■ When was the Parking Fund created? How is it The City has five enterprise funds (water, sewer,
funded? How are these funds used? parking, transit and golf). Each enterprise fund is a
■ What is the City's policy regarding the use of separate and distinct
Parkin Fund resources? Has the Parkin Fund accounting entity, and The P9ddMi fund4s ii
Parking g as such,the operations ,separate eccour�ing entity
ever subsidized the General Fund? #rotn4iIf iherClt rpnds
of each fund are :.•::::::
■ How were past property purchases funded? And accounted for within a
based on this, what fund should receive the separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise
proceeds from any land sales? its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and
■ How are residential parking districts funded? expenses.
Do related revenues cover costs? This means that the financial condition and results
ARI3ENG FUND CREATION from operations can be uniquely determined for each
P , ; TR_ enterprise fund.
Parking Fund Sources and Uses. Based on the
Based on a review of budget documents, the City 1999-01 Financial Plan, the following summarizes
has used meters for at least 45 years (and perhaps Parking Fund sources and uses for 1999-00:
longer than that, but
_ ,: • :,:,.: .;._ •.. our budget files only
-NO;ditdricj+Inmti,., `[fo _3 1999-00 Parldn Sources:$27 A 11flon
Wal ' go back to 1955). 9
riH9976, ut�re'tr`e I
iE�haother
However, a formally �eu F +
:::: ..-.� ...._.. . . ...._:_ distinct Parking Fund 4%
was not established Leases
until 1976. Before this, parldng-related activities s%
were accounted for as just another General Fund Meta
asx
expenditure like police, fire or street maintenance, tines
with any parlang-related revenues recorded in the +8%
General Fund as well. In short,until 1976,there was
no formal separation of ongoing financial activities Stnxwm
related to parldng—revenues or expenditures—from +e%
other General Fund transactions.
Paridng Enterprise Fund. Since it was fust As reflected above, parking meters on City streets
formed in 1976, the Parking Fund has been and parking lots are the Parking Fund's largest
accounted for as an enterprise fund. Under revenue source, bringing in about $1.2 million
generally accepted accounting principles, different annually and accounting for almost half of total
types of governmental activities are accounted for revenues. Daily fees and passes at the two parking
Parking Fund Financial Policies Page 2
structures bring in about $475,000 annually and Additional Financial Information About the
account for about 18% of total revenues. Parking City's Parking Fund. The following excerpts from
fines bring in about the same amount of revenue as the City's 1999-01 Financial Plan about the Parking
the two structures ($480,000). These top three Fund are provided in Exhibit A:
revenues—meters, structures and fines—account for
over 80%of total Parking Fund revenues. ■ Parking Program Narrative
■ CIP Projects and Descriptions
III Debt Service Obligations
1999-00 Parking Uses:$1.9 Million ■ General Government Cost Allocations
■ Changes in Financial Condition
odt%""w Provided in Exhibit B are the following audited
opus financial statements for the City's Parking Fund for
59 the last completed fiscal year(1998-99):
■ Balance Sheet
CIP Projects ■ Income Statement
s% ■ Statement of Cash Flows
A LLOWED PARKING FUND USES
Ll y
■ Operations and Maintenance. At about $1.1 =.
million annually, day-today operations account City Policies Regarding Enterprise Funds. As set
for almost 60% of total Parking Fund forth in the attached excerpt from the City's 1999-01
expenditures. This includes "direct" activities Financial Plan (Exhibit C), it is the City's policy to
like maintaining parking lots and repairing set parking fees and rates that fully cover the.total
meters, collecting revenues from about 1,600 costs (direct and indirect) of the Parking Fund,
meters,enforcing parking regulations,collecting including operations,capital outlay and debt service.
fines, and operating and maintaining two
structures with 669 spaces. Parking This means that the Parlangaevenues Fre oletyn,
management and planning costs are also paid by General Fund does not dedl atgo 4 ;x
the Parking Fund, along with "indirect" costs subsidize the Parking
like insurance and engineering support services. Fund, and the Packing': '
Fund does not subsidize the General Fund. In short,
■ CIP Projects. These vary significantly from parking revenues are solely dedicated for parking
year-to-year. . In some. years (like 1999-00), purposes. On the other hand,General Fund revenues
these can be relatively small. In other years, should not be used for parking purposes.
however,they can be very large. In 1997-99,for
example, the CIP budget included funds for But what are "parking purposes?" The purpose
expanding the Marsh Street structure. of the Parldng Fund is to finance programs and
projects intended to achieve our parking goals.
■ Debt Service. _ This represents the City's Expenditures that do
principal and interest payment of $650,000 this are accomplishing
annually on bonds issued to help fund a "ping purpose,"
construction of the City's two parking structures. Expenditures intended and thus are a
to achieve the Gtys
parking goals are an legitimate use of
Revenues Versos Expenditures. As reflected appropriate use of Parking Fund revenues.
above, we project that revenues in 1999-00 will Parking Fund sources.
exceed expenditures by about $800,000. These The . City's parldng
"net" revenues will be used to fund future Packing goals are set forth in a number of policy documents,
Management Plan programa and projects. including the General Plan, Parking Management
Parking Fund Financial Policies Page 3
Plan and Financial Plan. The following summarizes Has the Parking Fund Ever Subsidized the
parking goals from the Financial Plan and the General Fund? No. Since its inception in 1976,
Parking Management Plan: Parldng Fund revenues have been used solely for
parking purposes. However,as discussed below,the
1999-01 Financial Plan. As provided in Exhibit A, City has provided significant subsidies to the
the purpose of the City's Parking Program is to Parking Fund by
implement the Parldng Management Plan and direct providing it with land The P4Adng Fgf: 0i88�isver
the operation and maintenance of the City's parking at no cost. Further, a sul5sidfzed ttieG"e7,r"iierel i=uiid :
facilities. Program goals are: significant portion of However the Got.W-Pund
has p ovide&1dnd#o2he:__.
Parking Fund Parking Fund it#ia.46it
■ Adequate, safe and attractive parking for revenues comes from Y
visitors, customers and employees in the street meters. The
downtown and Railroad Square. General Fund has never charged the Parking Fund
■ Adequate neighborhood parking for residents. for the use of this valuable right-of-way.
■ Recovery of all program costs through user Summary. Programs and projects financed by the .
charges and other program revenue. Parking Fund will vary from year-to-year based on
the approved Financial Plan and Budget. Rather
Thus, any expenditure that accomplishes these than focusing on the type of expenditure in
purposes and goals would be an appropriate use of determining whether it is an appropriate use of
Parking Fund resources. Parking Fund resources,the simple test is to ask:
Does this expenditure help us achieve our parking
Parking Management Plan. As reflected above,the
Parldng Management Plan is a major policy goals?
document in setting parking goals and objectives.
R
As such, it is a major driver in determining it does, then it is an allowable use of the Parking
appropriate uses of Narking Fund resources. Fund revenues. (Deciding if it is a high priority use
is a different issue,best answered through the City's
Originally adopted in 1987 and last updated in 1995, goal-setting and budget process; but we need to
the Parking Management Plan establishes vehicle distinguish between an allowed use and a good one).
parking policies and programs that apply throughout Viewed in a somewhat different way, the economy
the City,not just the downtown. Plan goals include: of a billion people changed almost overnight based
■ Support the commercial core as a viable on the simple observation that it doesn't matter if a
economic and commercial
center and preserve its cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. In
historic character. determining the appropriate use of Parldng Fund
resources, we should focus on whether the
■ Support goals of the Downtown Concept Plan. expenditure will `help us catch mice" (achieve our
parking goals), not on its "color" (the specific type
■ Provide enough parking in the commercial core of expenditure we use to achieve these goals).
for visitors and employees.
■ Reduce the demand for employee parking FUNDING PROPERTY PURCHASES
through various programs such as carpooling.
■ Support the transportation strategy presented in Since adoption of the City's first Parking
the General Plan Circulation Element. Management Plan in 1987, all parking-related
property purchases g €
Again,expenditures that help achieve these goals ashave been funded We VOW 3t%`�en Bial
well as the more detailed policies and programs set through the Parking ;and r" ig Fu sd ire
forth in this Plan would bero riate uses of
aPP P Fund. However,
Parking Fund resources. "before then we used ai`- ;'s--••:;
Parking Fund Financial Policies Page 4
variety of funding sources in purchasing parking- Impact on Parking Fund Equity. The favorable
related properties. After almost 50 years, affect of General Fund property purchases on
determining.how each of them was acquired would Parking Fund equity is reflected in the audited
be a major research task. However, on a case-by- financial statements provided in Exhibit B for 1998-
case basis as this issue has arisen, we have 99, which show $1,854,000 in contributed capital.
researched old property, budget and audit files to This reflects the value of properties"contributed"to
determine acquisition funding sources. The the Parking Fund by the General Fund.
following are two examples:
In accordance with generally accepted principles,
Palm Street-Court Street Project. In response to this is based on the value of the properties at the
the recent Palm Street-Court Street proposal from time of purchase(or contribution). As noted above,
the Copeland's, we have extensively researched the many of these properties were purchased by the
source of funding for the City properties that would General Fund many years ago, and as such, their
be potentially affected by this project, and market value is much higher today than the "book"
discovered the following about the two affected value recorded in our financial statements.
parking lots:
What Fund Should Receive the Proceeds from
Court Street. There the Sale of Parking-Related Properties? This
C are three separate should be determined based on the original funding
parcels on this site. source:
Parcels A and B
A e � (about 75% of the ■ If the property was purchased through the
site) were purchased Parking Fund, then the proceeds should always
with parking be recorded in the
., ...::: ..'s . yyvwn�xvw,uu,vvr..uuow'•.
revenue bonds in Parking Fund. "Ti'oeeedmN.ashoirili 1Idl%tetl......
1961; and Parcel C (about 25% of the lot, and the ;, a" INN�. ....,. TURI 19
._..;-.._;... .......� sic: z•cs::'.::::c.�.......
site of the old Obispo Theater) was acquired in 1984 ■ If the property € 1+!` _ =s R; - yrs z3
with General Fund revenues. was purchased
with General Fund.revenues, then the use of the
Palm-Monterey. proceeds is discretionary by the City: they may
These parlang lots appropriately be used for Parking or other
were acquired overs purposes.
" number of years:
a "Lot 3" in 1957 and Application of this Principle. Let's put this
1958; "Lot 11" in principle in the context of several property sales
1966;and the corner currently under consideration. If we were to sell
lot at Morro and Court Street,about 75%of the proceeds should go to
Palm in 1981. All of these properties were the Parking Fund based on its direct "equity" share
purchased with General Fund revenues. in this property. The balance of the proceeds could
be used for other purposes, since the General Fund
San Luis Obispopaid for about 25%of this site. This is also the case
Little Theater Q for the.sale (or alternate use) of lots 3, 11 and 14,
Project. As part of since the General Fund paid for these as well.
this project yA u
proposal, we ° This principle also applies to the Parking Fund's use
researched the �p of the City's right-of-way for revenue (parking
funding source for meter) purposes. This is why no compensation is
"Lot 14" on provided by the General Fund if on-street metered
Monterey and Palm Streets between Nipomo and spaces are removed for other public purposes: the
Broad. We found that it was purchased in 1976 with Parking Fund never paid for their use to begin with.
General Fund revenues.
Parking Fund Financial Policies _ Page 5
In the case of the recent acquisition and remodel of reasons,.our hourly rate for them is higher than in
the office building on 879 Monro Street for the the outlying areas.
Utilities Department, the Parking Fund will be fully
reimbursed for the loss of two surface parking In summary, not every activity within an
spaces next to the Palm Street structure as part of enterprise—public or private—can or should be a
this project, profit center. As such, in complying with our
enterprise fund policies, it is not necessary for every
ESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS specific activity within the fund to recover its cost as
R long as the fund as a whole is adequately covering
its total costs.
As set forth in the Parking Management Plan, the UMMARY
Parking Fund covers more than just the downtown;
it has community-wide parking responsibilities,
including residential parking districts throughout the
City and Railroad Square. The following is a recap of the answers to the
questions raised at the beginning of this "white
What is the Oscal impact of the residential paper:"
parking districts on the Parking Fund? As
summarized in Exhibit D, we took a detailed look at . ■ The Parking Fund as a distinct accounting entity
this in 1997. This was formed in 1976.
ReVelit7es fidin:resl ei y m analysis shows that the ■ Revenues from meters,structures(daily fees and
-- --M.. "••...;
Ily,= " revenues from the
residential parking passes) and fines are the Parkin
Parking Fund's main
districts fully recover revenue sources, accounting for over 80% of
related costs; in fact, there is a small surplus (about revenues. These revenues are used in funding
$6,000��y) the operating, debt service and capital costs
incurred in achieving the City's parking goals.
What if these costs were not fully recovered? ■ parking Fund revenues are restricted for parking
Based on City parking goals,.it would be appropriate purposes. This means parking revenues may be
to account for these costs in the Parking Fund even used in funding programs and projects intended
if they were not fullyoffset by related revenues. to achieve the City's parking goals. These goals
Our enterprise fund policy does not require that are set in a number of policy documents,
including the General Plan, Parking
every specific activity within the fund be fully offset
Management Plan and Financial Plan.
by related revenues. Just as in the private sector,
there are activities within each of our enterprise ■ The Parking Fund.has never subsidized the.
funds that generate more revenues than others; General Fund.
prices are set accordingly based on overall business
strategies(in our case,desired policy outcomes)and ■ Parking property purchases have been funded by
market forces. both the-General Fund and the Parking Fund.
While there are several examples of this in each of ■ Promos from land sales (or changes in use)
our enterprise funds, there are excellent ones within should be recorded in the Parking Fund if
the Parking Fund itself. Parking Fund revenues were used to purchase
the property. If the General Fund purchased the
For example, it is clear that the direct daily fees and site, then the proceeds may be used for parking
pass revenues from the parking structures do not or other purposes.
come anywhere near recovering their operating, ■ Revenues from residential parking districts fully
maintenance and capital costs. Similarly,it does not recover their costs.
cost us any more to maintain parking meters in the
"core"area of downtown,but for very valid business
Parking Fund Financial Policies
EXHIBITS
A. 1999-01 Financial Plan: Excerpts on Parking
1. Parking Program Narrative
2. CIP Projects and Descriptions
3. Debt Service Obligations
4. General Government Cost Allocations
5. Changes in Financial Condition
B. 1998-99 Audited Financial Statements
1. Balance Sheet
2. Income Statement
3. Statement
C. Budget and Fiscal Policies: Enterprise Fund Rates and Fees
D. Residential Parking District Cost Analysis: July 14, 1997
TRANSPORTATION Exhibit-A..
PROGRAM: Parking OPERATION: Parking
DEPARTMENT:. Public Works FUND: Parking Fund
1997-98 1998-90 1999-00 2000-01
PROGRAM COSTS ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
Stafrmg 382,700 422,600 429,100 433,100
Contract services 211,100 235,600 247,200 244;400
Other operating expenditures 100,800 88,600 89,100 101,600
Minor capital 7,700 21,000 0 0
Total $702,300 $767,800 $765,400 $779,100
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Parking Program implements the Parking Management Plan and directs the operation and maintenance of the City's parking
fi=7ities. These facilities include 13 parking lots in the downtown and at Railroad Square,two parking garages, four residential
parking permrt districts(Alta vista,Monterey Heights,Park View,and Tassajara)and about 1,600 parking meters in parking.lots,
on streets in the downtown retail core, and on streets in neighborhoods at the periphery of downtown. Program goals are 1)
adequate, safe, and attractive parking for visitors, customers, and employees in the downtown and Railroad Square; 2) adequate
neighborhood parking for residents;and 3)recovery of all program costs through user charges and other program revenue. This
program has four major activities:
■ Enforcement Patrolling streets,parking lots,parking garages,and permit districts;issuing citations;arranging for towing the
• vehicles of habitual parking offenders;recommending the installation of regulatory signs and nub markings.
■ Revenue management Collecting fines, parking meter revenue, and parking fees and leases; collecting delinquent fines;
recommending parking fee and fine adjustments; modifying meters for rate adjustments; selling parking permits,bus passes,
and economy service garbage bags.
■ Maintenance Maintaining and repairing parking meters and meter posts;performing janitorial maintenance in the parking
garages and parking offices;sweeping and cleaning parking lots;sweeping and scrubbing parking garage floors.
• Garage operations Collecting parking garage fees,providing security surveillance,maintaining customer service equipment
STAFFING SUA04ARY
Regular Positions:
Parking Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Parking Enforcement Officer 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Parking Meter Repair Worker 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
secretary 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Office Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead Parking Attendant 1 0 1:.0 Lo— 1.0
TOTAL 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Temporary Positions:
Full-time equivalents(FTE) 53 5.3 53 5.3
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGES
None.
D-70 -
TRANSPORTATION J
PROGRAM: Parking(continued)
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
1999-01 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Major City Coals
■ 1999-01: Parking and Downtown Access Plan. Adopt and begin implementing the Parking and Downtown Access
Plan addressing a balance between parking supply,parking management,and parking demand reduction.
■ 1999-01: Downtown Plan. Begin planning for the Palm II Parking Structure by preparing design studies,performing
environmental review and acquiring properties.
Other Program Objectives: Capital Improvement Plan Projects
■ 2000-01: Reseal Railroad Square parking lot.
PERFORMANCE AND 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
WORKLOAD INDICATORS ACTUAL PROJECTED ESTIMATED .ESTIMATED
Lot parking spaces provided 551 559 586 586
Garage parking spaces provided 668 668 668 978
Strut parking spaces provided 1,123 1,141 1,141 1,141
Citations written 30,713 30,800 31,000 31,000
Average occupancy rate at the Marsh Street Garage 91% 92% 93% 90%
Average occupancy rate at the Palm Street Garage 77% 80% 80% 80%
Complaints about garage operations 348 333 320 320
Percentage of uncontested citations written 98% 97% 97% 97%
Percentage of citations successfully collected 83%. 84% 84% 84%
Ratio of actual vs.potential parking meter revenue 50% 55% 58% 58%
Percentage of meters requiring repair 38% 9% 7% 7%
D-71
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANExhibitj4-. I.
_
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING-TRANSPORTATION
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED
Sidewalk-Madonna Road at SLO Creek Bridge
Environmental Review 25,000
Design 76,000
Construction 216,000
Construction Management 38,000
Sidewalk-Oceanaire-Huasna Area 600,000
Total PedestrianMikeways 430,000 215,000 1,404,000 1,583,000
Northerly Quadrant Parking Structure
Study 100,000
Environmental Review 150,000
Land Acquistion 200,000
Design 000,000
Railroad Square Lot Resealing 60,000
Vehicle Replacement
Mid-Size Sedan 20,000
Total Parking 120,000 410,000 1,300,000
Transit Transfer Center
Study 15,000
Capital Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Bus Stops 40,000
Bus Replacements 825,000 825,000
Total Transit 105,000 875,000 50,000 875,000
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION $49838,000 $8,277,000 $790359000 $8,1211000
Phasing-All amounts are for construction or equipment acquisition unless otherwise indicated
B-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT EXPENDITURES BY SOURCE-ENTERPRISE&AGENCY FUNDS
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED
PARKING FUND
Northemly Quadrant Parking Structure 100,000 350,000 1,300,000
Railroad Square Lot Resealing 60,000
Vehicle Replacement:Mid-Size Sedan 20,000
• Office Application Software 2,400
Total Parking Fund 120,000 412,400 1,3009000
TRANSIT FUND
Transit Transfer Center 15,000
Capital Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Bus Stops 40,000
Bus Replacements 825,000 825,000
Total Transit Fund 105,000 875,000 50,000 8759000
GOLFFUND
Parking Lot Paving 36,500
Vehicle&Equipment Replacement
Triplex Mower 25,000
Cushman cart and greens mower 20,000
Four Wheel Drive Pickup Truck 20,000
Total Golf Fund 259000 36,500 20,000 20,000
WHALE Rock rurm
Old C=k habitat Plan 100,000
Pipeline Relocation 1,090,000
Energy Efficient Motor Upgrade 60,000
Intake Valve Replacement 95,000
Vehicle Replacements:Service Trucks 30,000 25,000
Total Whale Rock Fund 1,220,000 859000 959000
TOTAL ENTERPRISE &
AGENCY FUNDS $6,3577800 $147001,800 $7,485,800 $24,642,100
• Project funded by more than one source
B_25
CAPI'T'AL IMPROVEMENT PLAN "
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS—TRANSPORTATION
• Constructing a sidewalk on the south side of TRANSIT
Madonna Road on the bridge crossing San.Luis
Obispo Creek will cost $25,000 for
environmental work in 2001-02, $16,000 for Transit Transfer Center(1999-00)
design in 2001-02, and $254,000 for Studying, in depth, two potential sites for an off-
construction.in 2002-03. street multimodal transit transfer site in the
• Replacing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk downtown will cost$15,000 in 1999-00.
and replacing troublesome street trees in the
residential area south of.Madonna Road and east Bus Replacements (2000-03)
of Los Osos Valley Road will cost $600,000 in • Buying three new buses to replace buses 128,
2001-02. 129,and 136 will cost$825,000 in 2000-01.
• Buying three new buses to replace buses 130,
PARKING 131,and 132 will cost$825,000 in 2002-03
Northerly Quadrant Parking Structure(1999-03)
Acquiring property and preparing construction
documents for a northerly quadrant parking
structure in the downtown will cost $100,000 for
design studies in 1999-00, $410,000 for
environmental review and property acquisition in
2000-01, and $1,300,000 for design, plans and
specifications in 2002-03.
Railroad Square Parking Lot Resealing(2000-01)
Resealing the parking lot at Railroad Square will
cost$60,000 in 2000-01.
Vehicle Replacement(1999-00)
Replacing one sedan with one late model used mid-
size sedan will cost$20,000 in 1999-00.
1-34
� Exhibit
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL PAYMENTS BY FUNCTION
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection 20000
Fire&Environmental Safety 238,000 237,400 238,800 237,600
Total Public Safety 238,000 237,400 238,800 257,600
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Wastewater Service 2,135,700 2,135,960 2,135,700 2,135,700
Water Service 1,429,000 1,436,000 _ 1,056,700 1,213,300
Total Public Utilities 3,564,700 3,571,900 3,192,400 3,3499000
TRANSPORTATION
Streets and Flood Control 381,600 382,000 381,600 382,700
Parking 661,300 650,560 649,900 1,076,400
Total Transportation 1,042,900 1,032,500 1,031,500 19459,100
LEISURE,CULTURAL&SOCIAL SERVICES
Cultural Services 12,600 12,500 12,600 75,000
Parks and Recreation 566,400 570,300 490,900 625,700
Social Services 13,000 325,800 327,800
Total Leisure,Cultural&Social Services 579,000 655,800 829,300 110289500
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Buildings 112,500 112,200 112,800 112,300
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS $59537,100 $5,609,800 $5,404,800 $692069500
Proposed 1999-01 Financings
Water Re-Use Project
During 2000-01,a project financing with net proceeds in the amount of$8,900,000 is planned to pay for the design and
construction of a distribution system to convey reclaimed water to various points of use throughout the City. Annual
debt service requirements are estimated to be$623,000 beginning in 2001-02 to be paid from the Water Fund
Parking Improvements
During 1999-00,a project financing with net proceeds in the amount of$5.4 million is planned to pay for expanding the
Marsh Street parking garage. Annual debt service requirements are estimated to be$425,000 beginning in 2000-01 to
be paid from the Parking Fund
Athletic Fields,Downtown and Police Station Expansion Property Purchases
During 1999-00,a project financing with net proceeds of about$3.2 million is planned to pay for acquiring athletic
fields,downtown and Police Station expansion properties. Annual net debt service requirements are estimated to be
about$245,000 in 2000-01 to be paid from the General Fund
Refinancing the 1988 and 1990 CerdlJi des of Participation(COPPIs)
During 1999-00,the City plans to refinance$6.5 million in outstanding bond debt due to favorable interest rates that
will save the City approximately$113,600 annually in debt service payments($55,100 for the 1998 Water COP's and
SS8,5W for the 1990 COP's).
F-2
FINANCIAL AND STA i aSTICAL TABLES
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS -REIlABURSEMENT TRANSFERS
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
General Fund (2,445,100) (2,598,300) (2,673,700) (2,754,500)
Community Development Block Grant Fund 64,800 91,000 91,300 94,600
Enterprise and Agency Funds
Water 914,100 988,300 1,017,900 1,048,400
Sewer 782,300 814,600 839,000 864,200
Parking 311,000 320,300 329,900 339,800
Transit 207,200 213,400 219,800 226,400
Golf 93,300 96,100 99,000 102,000
Whale Rock Commission 72,400 74,600 76,800 79,100
Total Enterprise and Agency Funds 2,380,300 2,507,300 2,582,400 2,659,900
NET REMMURSEMENT TRANSFERS $0 $0 $0 $0
Summary of Purpose , 1999-01 Reimbursement Transfers
„
All of the City's General Government and CIP Project Engineering programs are initially accounted and budgeted
for in the General Fund.However,these support service programs also benefit the City's CDBG,enterprise and
agency fund operations,and accordingly,transfers are made from these funds to reimburse the General Fund for
these services.These transfers are based on a Cost Allocation Plan prepared for this purpose which distributes
these shared costs in a uniform,consistent manner in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Copies of the most current Cost Allocation Plan are available from the Department of Finance upon request For
fiscal years 1999-01,the following is a summary of total general government,CIP project engineering and facilities
use costs,and the percentage level supported by the General,CDBG,Enterprise,and Agency Funds:
1999-00 2000-01
General Government Programs
City council 134,800 131,600
General Administration 0
City Administration 445,500 450,100
Public Works Administration 482,600 485,500
Transportation Planning&Engineering 302,200 284,000
Parks&Recreation Administration 381,600 385,800
Legal Services 280,000 292,600
City Cleric Services 330,400 351,800
Organizational Support Services
Finance,Human Resources,Information Systems,and Geodata Services 2,452,000 2,441,900
Risk Management and Insurance Expenditures 797,900 810,600
Radio Communications Services 123,000 124,700
Other Support Services(telephones,copiers,etc) 475,200 435,200
Buildings and Vehicle Maintenance 1,090,300 1,107,200
Total General Government Programs t,000
CIP Project Engineering Program 910,600 911,100
Facilities and Equipment Use 2,745,200 2,827,600
Total Reimbursed Programs 10,951,300 11,039,700
Percent Funded By
General Fund 75% 75%
Community Development Block Grant Fund 1% 1%
Enterprise and Agency Funds % 24%
Total Reimbursed Programs 100% 100%
H-10
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
ExhlbitAi
PARKING FUND
1997-98 1998-99 . 1999-00 2000-01
ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
Revenues
Service Charges
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 399,200 404,400 445,000 445,000
Streets 704,500 715,500 801,060 806;500
Parking Structure Collections 277,300 275,000 290,000 310,000
Tong-Term Parking Revenues 173,000 175,500 186,000 191,000
Lease Revenues 115,400 127,000 125,000 130,000
Parking In-Lieu Fees 92,300 107,900 95,000 95,000
Other Service Charges 26,800 29,900 25,000 25,000
Total Service Charges 1,782,500 1,835,200 1;967,000 2,002,500
Investment and Property Revenues 292,900 235,000 235,000 235,000
Fines and Forfeitures 383,000 552;000 480,000 480,000
Total Revenues 2,458,400 2,622,200 2,682,000 2,717,500
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 702,300 767,800 765,400 779,100
General Government 311,000 320,300 329,900 339,800
Total Operating Programs 1,013,300 1,088,100 1,095,300 1,118,900
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 424,300 6,865,400 120,000 412,400
Debt Service 661,300 650,500 649,900 1,076,400
Total Expenditures 2,098,900 8,604,000 1,865,200 2,6079700
Other Sources(Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 5,400,000
Potential MOA Adjustments (900) (3,200) (10,500)
Total Other Sources(Uses) 5,399,100 - (3,200) (107500)
Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 359,500 (582,700) 813,600 99,300
Working Capital,Beginning of Year 3,067,600 3,427,100 2,844,400 3,658,000
Working Capital,End of Year $3,427,100 $2,844,400 $3,658,000 $3,757,300
0-20
Go o o � 0 0 0 0 0 0
hiM k 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0
N 00 — %0 r o en r v_ 0 °_ 00 r-
06
00 v N Orn 00 O% 00 00 v .• W. '+
0
- � M to r �oo %o kn gn40 00
N M N M S N 00 b — %0 pp
N
Q` O O O O O O O O O OO O O O
a O O O O O 00 O O O O O O - O
.a. h 4n .+ N M 00 O, O\ N �o Wn r
00 N 0� O V1 h 4 .-� M °�
R v1 M kn
N CD D O M b O 00 %0 n N
%6 O� yNj
•.t
bq d4
N
co
ON
CY
d
U
H
Q Y F
Y •� o �y
97y t y 'O
H 'b O ~ u �y a � N •� Q
.y i0 W A A O Y y y
00 '�^ O •O WC
00
CY
a U U ca
C s o 0
a U a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.aa O\ -wr M N 00 M CD '+ %0 OA r en
O en h vi %6 N r- M 00 O 00 O n M O
.•w t- n h N M N ...� N 000
- M M N Oi N N O 'ef
O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 O O
a0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 O 'O
(ra .a+ N %° O� N tt N tt O M r l
O vi N Q r N r 00 1-*' er 00 in O�
O en .•+ %0 ••• ..1' 0% N : O O en Q'
N Go O r 'h N v r O V h C�l
el v N O� c+1 eV C N
Vi (A
Y
a
u r° r
iv a^ai > a u cy �. yi tet^.' U
•.. V
to96
a v
� • W Y
Exhibit
"� 00000 0 00 0 0 0 O O o o O o
q 00000 O 00 O O O O O O O O O
.�. O P •-•M'V' h M O M %O. O. %D M .-� OD O. t-
en
en eW�N" h N. M P- O '0' in h 7 N t:
00 O P 0% .• %C O •.• .-• b 00 0o 0% M N %n
M O M !I Pm P O P
00000 O 00 O O .O O O O O O O
W 7 P%O P N \O M O� IRT M O\ O 00 P V1
lc P 00 O�N M N O N P O N 00 M l: n N
hM TPM O V1 N P h M P O M v V1 O
T N R r+ le 00 M r+ M h 00 b t
-Z P
00
O�
CT 69 d4
U' 0
CTO
W
A O
z�
Fi W
J
U � U
O
v� a
5 C40 "
z �
a WM
a
W w
0 `� A
W
a
Wa
�+ u
}
o �.
- z o
b94
u O Z
zm m W
.. 'OCA u ai ZA 0 }Otl0 k� p7Wy�. vj
ILI
009 .�� Wim ' . 2 �+
!� Q l� z z
v
ls 9 m g m 9 Z Fs P w
0916 o o
Exhlblt
a o00 0 0o0 o O O o 0 0
OMO 00 in �NcG N a m C, N 00
bm .-+ RN .N-� Q' R O Q
N
v
a 000 O O O O O O Cl O O O
O O O O Opo O O O O O O O
M t—N ? "I,�O 00 00 t` h M b O�
o0 c0 00 c W;�YI W [� tz V'106' en .
00 v00 Yl cD 00 r+ O O et O� R
M vM N %n eq N N N N 'ct n
00 v
O�
O�
.� 69 (A
a
O
w
O
U � U
p7
a
air r o
O O0 �
o
a
C a
U W
�y u
a �
W N
m
a `°
V .q
m
M 4 a v a
�ao 0 A E' ' m
a a 40.
m e4
�' w
to
000 -o
ca ca
41
a O O 0000 0 0O O O O
00000 ° a000
" %0 %0 0o N% '7 --t P 'Rr M %C
mr
000 b vvN n h O- a M a
r- M M "1 b t-
r1 M !r
a O O 0000 O O 0 0 0 0
0+ O O 0000 O O O O O O
M M[- V1 IT
+� p�
n h .fir en 000 cn
00 M v M N N 00 r-
r+ M et
00
O
� H H9 69 d9
a
0
w
0
b
d
O
v00 � o
U
►5 U .°. �
ra CC F y5
en
O O0 0
,n
V
1✓�•, U N cc it
d q
y rcov
�
a
CS .,
A
a
�
C 0 C.) o
w g a .c u v
eo b.5
o �-m9a m ea
a
o.� y a c b cc 9esto9103
93
93 IV cc
oa
z
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES Exhibit G
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
background information in setting fees for operations, capital outlay, and debt service--of
several reasons: the following enterprise programs: water, sewer
and parking.
a. They reflect the "market" for these fees
and can assist in assessing the B. Golf. Golf program fees and rates should fully
reasonableness of San Luis Obispo's cover direct operating costs. Because of the
fees. nine-hole nature of the golf course with its focus
on youth and seniors, subsidies , from the
b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as General Fund to cover indirect costs and capital
a benchmark for how cost-effectively improvements may be considered by the
San Luis Obispo provides its services. Council as part of the Financial Plan process.
2. However, fee surveys should never be the C. Transit. As set forth in the Short-Range Transit
sole or primary criteria in setting City fees Plan, the City will strive to cover at least thirty
as there are many factors that affect how percent of transit operating costs with fare
and why other communities have set their revenues.
fees at their levels. For example:
D. Ongoing Rate Review. The City will review
a. What level of cost recovery is their fee and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as
intended to achieve compared with our required to ensure that they remain appropriate
cost recovery objectives? and equitable.
b. What costs have been considered in E: Franchise and In-Lieu Fees. In accordance
computing the fees? with long-standing practices, City will treat the
c. When was the last time that their fees water and sewer funds in the same manner as if
were comprehensively evaluated? they were privately owned and operated. In
d. What level of service do they provide addition to setting,rates at levels necessary'to
compared with our service or fully cover the cost of providing water and
performance standards? sewer service, this means assessing reasonable
franchise and property tax in-lieu fees.
e. Is their rate structure significantly
different than ours and what is it 1. Franchise fees for water and sewer service
intended to achieve? are based on the state-wide standard for
public utilities like electricity and gas: 2%
These can be very difficult questions to of gross revenues from operations. The
address in fairly evaluating fees among appropriateness of charging the water and
different communities. As such, the sewer funds a reasonable franchise fee for
comparability of our fees to other the use of City streets is further supported
communities should be one factor among by the results of recent studies in Arizona,
many that is considered in setting City fees. California, Ohio and Vermont which
concluded that the leading cause for street
ENTERPRISE FUND FEE_S AND RATES resurfacing and reconstruction is street cuts
and trenching for utilities.
A. Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set 2. . For the water fiord,property tax in-lieu fees
fees and rates at levels which fully cover the are established under the same methodology
total direct and indirect costs—including used in assessing property tax in-lieu fees to
B-10
Exhibits..
MEMORANDUM
July 14, 1997
TO: Bill Statler, Finance Director
FROM: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT
EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES
In follow-up to the July 2°d meeting regarding the operation costs and net revenues for
administering the current city-wide residential parking permit districts, the following is the
breakdown for revenues and expenditures:
Revenues
1145 annually @
Citations Issued. 85% collection rate Total
50%paid directly 572 citations @$20 $11,440
25%paid I'penalty 286 citations @$30 $8,580
10%paid 2°d penalty 114 citations @$40 $4,560
Total $24,580
Ex enditures
Category Basis Total
$30.65*per hour @ average of 5 $6,130
Enforcement hrs a week for 40 weeks
Citation processing $0.82 for 1145 $939
Permit.Processing $15.60 per residence for 354 $5,522
households
Annual Maintenance _ Signs and poles . $9201
Total ** $13,511
` Includes benefits,equipment and all indirect costs per adopted hourly rate schedule
*• Note Expenditures do not include one-time installation costs($1,500 to$2,500 depending on
the size of the district)
Net Revenues $11069
The above figures represent the basic operating and revenue figures for administering the four
parking.districts. However, they DO NOT take into account the fact that when enforcement
personnel are in the outlying permit districts we are not getting visibility for meter payment.
Therefore, the net difference in terms of overall revenue is really less, conservatively $3,000 to
$5,000 annually (loss of meter payments @ 25 per day @ 50.60 x 5 days = $75 x 40 weeks =
$3,000).
Estimated Net Revenues-Including Lost Meter Revenues "p
MEETING AGENDA f
^ DATE _ITEM . .,_
������a�uu���►���un ������
council m Em onan bum
Date
TO: City Council �Q�
FROM Ken Hampian, City Administrative OfficeR
Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Parking Fund Financial Analysis and Issues Paper
The Council will be considering issues relating to the Downtown Parking Management Program
and the draft Parking Downtown Access Plan (PDAP) at its meeting of Tuesday May 1, 2001. I'
thought it would be helpful to resend you a copy of the previously prepared issues paper
regarding the Parking Enterprise fund that was prepared by Bill Statler. This document is an
excellent reference on historical issues as well as current (and past)policies on parking revenues
and expenditures. I have also included a more recent breakdown of current Parking Fund revenue
sources and amounts.
Some of the key areas include the section on "Allowed Parking Fund Uses"which starts on page
• 2 and also the section on "Residential Parking Districts" on page 5, which shows that the last.
time we checked, the residential permit district areas paid for themselves.
- CaUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
*G}C ❑ FIN DIR
�
0 ❑ �E CHIEF
RNEY ErPW DIR
CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ D T FADS ❑ REC DIR
UTIL DIR
0 HR®In
✓ba'C,lu.rrni
RECEIVED
• APR 2 6 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Parking Fund Revenues for past 3 fiscal years in actual dollars ^
Revenues 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
As of 3-31-01
Investments $292,900 $227,900 $254,400 $2341423
Parking Meters
Lots $399,200 $445,400 $450,500 $297,213
Streets $704,500 $792,100 $769,200 $573,706
Subtotal $1,103,700 $1,237,500 $1,219,700 $870,920
Parking Fines $383,000 $454,800 $446,900 $359,058
Garages (daily) $277,300 $284,700 $273,000 $2151759
Long-term
Prox cards(50%) $173,000 $196,400 $210,100 $153,742
10-hr permits(40%)
Lot 14(7%)
Meter bags(21/o)
Validations(1%)
Leases O
RR Square $23,556 $24,492 $25,189 $19,410
Copelands $91,844 $108,208 $121,811 $86,873
Total $115,400 $132,700 $147,000 $106,283
In-lieu fees $929300 $79,600 $739500 $87,403
Other services
*Meter bags, $20,800 $17,500 $1000* $74
validations,etc.now
deposited in long-
term account
Total $29458,400 $296829000 $297519400 $2,027,307
Parkingfundrevenue3years •
VAX,,. Cietcttt, B L4tl l'IntN..
MI1�il�lll s n Luis owspo
Parking Fund Financial Policies
May 1,2000 differently depending on their purpose. Enterprise
funds are used to account for services that are similar
The purpose of this "white paper" is to address four to private sector activities where the intent is to
concerns that have recently emerged about the finance or recover the cost of providing services
Parking Fund: Primarily through user charges.
■ When was the Parking Fund created? How is it The City has five enterprise funds (water, sewer,
funded? How are these funds used? packing, transit and golf). Each enterprise fund is a
■ What is the City's policy regarding the use of separate and distinct
Parkin Fund resources? Has the Parkin Fund accounting entity, and the Parkingund:ls
Parking g as such,the operations seParaie:eccour ung e04W
ever subsidized the General Fund? from etl e1her,01ty funds
of each fund are _: ..:...:
■ How were past property purchases funded? And accounted for within a
based on this, what fund should receive the separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise
proceeds from any land sales? its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and
■ How are residential parking districts funded? expenses.
• Do related revenues cover costs? This means that the financial condition and results
ARSING FUND CREATION from operations can be uniquely determined for each
P _ enterprise fund.
Parldng Fund Sources and Uses. Based on the
Based on a review of budget documents, the City 1999-01 Financial Plan, the following summarizes
has used meters for at least 45 years (and perhaps Parking Fund sources and uses for 1999-00:
longer than that, but
Q
! � our budget files only 199"0 Parking Sources:$2.7 M111lon
crew c 3iffill S S.-butwe e
go back to 1955).
! lta frtetcrS,tbrt �y ) Other
4,1ea rs - r ; However, a formally to%
....... h4leu Fees
distinct Parking Fund 4%
was not established cease
until 1976. Before this, parking-related activities s%
were accounted for as just another General Fund
expenditure like police, fire or street maintenance, Fines 45%
with any parking-related revenues recorded in the te%
General Fund as well. In short,until 1976,there was
no formal separation of ongoing financial activities saucwm
related to parking—revenues or expenditures—from 1e%
other General Fund transactions.
Parting Enterprise Fund. Since it was first As reflected above, parking meters on City streets
• formed in 1976, the Parking Fund has been and parking Lots are the Parking Fund's largest
accounted for as an enterprise fund. Under revenue source, bringing in about $1.2 million
generally accepted accounting principles, different annually and accounting for almost half of total
types of governmental activities are accounted for revenues. Daily fees and passes at the two parking
Parking Fund Financial Policies Page 2
structures bring in about $475,000 annually and Additional Financial Information About
account for about 18% of total revenues. Parking City's Parking Fund. The following excerpts from
fines bring in about the same amount of revenue as the City's 1999-01 Financial Plan about the Parking
the two stmctures ($480,000). These top three Fund are provided in Exhibit A:
revenues---meters, structures and fines—account for
over 80%of total Parking Fund revenues: ® Parking Program Narrative
■ CIP Projects and Descriptions
■ Debt Service Obligations
1999-00 Parldng Uses:$1.9 Million ■ General Government Cost Allocations
■ Changes in Financial Condition
Dw sem Provided in Exhibit B are the following audited
ss% operations financial statements for the City's Parking Fund for
the last completed fiscal year(1998-99):.
■ Balance Sheet
aP Projects ■ Income Statement
e% ■ Statement of Cash Flows
ALLOWED PARKING FUND USES
■ Operations and Maintenance. At about $1.1
million annually, day-to-day operations account City Policies Regarding Enterprise Funds. As set
for almost 60% of total Parking Fund forth in the attached excerpt from the City's 1999-�
expenditures. This includes "direct" activities Financial Plan (Exhibit C), it is the City's polic,
like maintaining parking lots and repairing set parking fees and rates that fully cover the.to
meters, collecting revenues from about 1,600 costs (direct and indirect) of the Parking Fund,
meters,enforcing parking regulations,collecting including operations,capital outlay and debt service.
fines, and operating and maintaining two _
structures with 669 aces. Parkin This means that the 9 "'�"'
sp g parl3n revenues reisolely z�y`
management and planning costs are also paid by General Fund does not decYiealWAVE INE
se-Wu
the Parking Fund, along with "indirect" costs subsidize the Parking .'_P � : •r. :..t� =:=m:r..
like insurance and engineering support services. Fund, and the Parking
Fund does not subsidize the General Fund. In short,
■ CIP Projects. These vary significantly from parking revenues are solely dedicated for parking
year-to-year. In some. years (like 1999-00), purposes: On the other hand,General Fund revenues
these can be relatively small. In other years, should not be used for parking purposes.
however,they can be.very large. In 1997-99,for
example, the CIP budget included funds for But what are "parking purposes?" The purpose
expanding the Marsh Street structure. of the Parking Fund is to finance programs and
projects intended to achieve our parking goals.
• Debt Service. . This represents the City's Expenditures that do
principal and interest payment of $650,000 , . thisare accomplishing
annually on bonds issued to help fund a "parking purpose,"
construction of the City's two parldng structures. Expenditures Intended and thus are a
to achieve the Gtys
patidng goals are an legitimate use of
Revenues Versus Expenditures• As reflected appropriate use of Parking Fund revenues.
above, we project that revenues in 1999-00 will Parldng Fund sources.
exceed expenditures by about $800,000. These The City's
"net" revenues will be used to fund future Parking goals are set forth in a number of policy docECT
Management Plan program and projects. including the General Plan, Parking Management
Parldng Fund Financial Policies Page 3
•Plan and Financial Plan. The following summarizes Has the Parldng Fund Ever Subsidized the
parking goals from the Financial Plan and the General Fund? No. Since its inception in 1976,
Parking Management Plan: Parking Fund revenues have been used solely for
parking purposes. However,as discussed below, the
1999-01 Financial Plan. As provided in Exhibit A, City has provided significant subsidies to the
the purpose of the City's Parking Program is to Parking Fund by ,
implement the Parking Management Plan and direct providing it with land The'„P.gi...... FUt1 B i±ver
the operation and maintenance of the City's parking at no cost. Further, a sutisiilined theI ,•.•salWK-'
facilities. Program goals are: significant portion of However;the Q6hi:Pdnd
Parkin Fund hasprovided-liai 1fie:--
Parking Parkl00,Fund at Inti cost:
■ Adequate, safe and attractive parking for revenues comes from _
visitors, customers and employees in the street meters. The
downtown and Railroad Square. General Fund has never charged the Parking Fund
■ Adequate neighborhood parking for residents. for the use of this valuable right-of-way.
■ Recovery of all program costs through user Summary. Programs and projects financed by the .
charges and other program revenue. Parking Fund will vary from year-to-year based on
the approved Financial Plan and Budget. Rather
Thus, any expenditure that accomplishes these than focusing on the type of expenditure in
purposes and goals would be an appropriate use of determining whether it is an appropriate use of
Parking Fund resources. Parking Fund resources,the simple test is to ask:
Does this expenditure help us achieve our parking
parking Management Plan. As reflected above,the
gals?
OParking Management Plan is a major policy
document in setting parking goals and objectives. If it does, then it is an allowable use of the Parking
As such, it is a major driver in determining
appropriate uses of Parking Fund resources. Fund revenues. (Deciding if it is a high priority use
is a different issue,best answered through the City's
Originally adopted in 1987 and last updated in 1995, goal-setting and budget process; but we need to
the Parking Management Plan establishes vehicle distinguish between an allowed use and a good one).
parking policies and programs that apply throughout
the City,not just the downtown. Plan goals include: Viewed in a somewhat different way, the economy
of a billion people changed almost overnight based
■ Support the commercial core as a viable on the simple observation that it doesn't matter if a
economic and cultural center and preserve its cat is'black or white as long as it catches mice. In
historic character. determining the appropriate use of Parking Fund
resources, we should focus on whether the
■ Support goals of the Downtown Concept Plan. expenditure will "help us catch mice” (achieve our
parking goals), not on its `color" (the specific type
■ Provide enough parking in the commercial core of expenditure we use to achieve these goals).
for visitors and employees.
■ Reduce the demand for employee parking U1VD1�iG PROPERTY PURCHASES
through various programs such as carpooling.
■ Support the transportation strategy presented in Since adoption of the City's first Parking
the General Plan Circulation Element. Management Plan in 1987, all parking-related
Property Purchases ...........
Again,expenditures that help achieve these goals as have been funded Wehaveaised;•�
•well as the more detailed policies and programs set through the Parking aaaiSe
patfc� t:1nn,,.:.
.. ...
forth in this Plan would be appropriate uses of Fund. However,
Parking Fund resources. before then we used a ._ ' Un
_._..,..
Parldng Fund Financial Policies Page 4
variety of funding sources in purchasing parking- Impact on Parking Fund Equity. The favo
related properties. After almost 50 years, affect of General Fund property purchases o
determining how each of them was acquired would Parking Fund equity is reflected in the audited
be a major research task However, on a case-by- financial statements provided in Exhibit B for 1998-
case basis as this issue has arisen, we have 99, which show $1,854,000 in contributed capital.
researched old property, budget and audit files to This reflects the value of properties"contributed" to
determine acquisition funding sources. The the Parking Fund by the General Fund.
following are two examples:
In accordance with generally accepted principles,
Palm Street-Court Street Project. In response to this is based on the value of the properties at the
the recent Palm Street-Corot Street proposal from time of purchase(or contribution). As noted above,
the Copeland's, we have extensively researched the many of these properties were purchased by the
source of funding for the City properties that would General Fund many years ago, and as such, their
be potentially affected by this project, and market value is much higher today than the "book"
discovered the following about the two affected value recorded in our financial statements.
parking lots:
What Fund Should Receive the Proceeds from
Court Street. There the Sale of Parldng-Related Properties? This
. , are three separate should be determined based on the original funding
parcels on this site. source:
Parcels A and B
� B ` (about 75% of the ■ If the property was purchased through the
site) were purchased Parking Fund, then the proceeds should always
with parking be recorded in the
revenue bonds in Parking Fund. l'rnceedsshot.. ..
1961; and Parcel C (about 25% of the lot, and the bas as fief q r3
site of the old Obispo Theater)was acquired in 1984 ■ If the property ouYc�r-.-"-'• =': ...........
.,
. _................ .....,-..--<,r,.-,..,.,..,..L..... .
with General Fund revenues. was purchased
with General Fund revenues,then the use of the
Palm-Montereyproceeds is discretionary by the City: they may
e These parking lots appropriately be used for Parkkng or other
were acquired over a purposes.
number of years:
"Lot 3" in 1957 and Application of this Principle. Let's put this
1958; "Lot 11" in principle in the context of several property sales
1966; and the corner currently under consideration. If we were to sell
lot at Morro and Court Street,about 75%of the proceeds should go to
Palm in 1981. All of these properties were the Packing Fund based on its direct"equity" share
purchased with General Fund revenues. in this property. The balance of the proceeds could
be used for other purposes, since the General Fund
San 1Ads Obispo paid for about 25%of this site. This is also the case
Little 'heater Qql for the sale (or alternate use) of lots 3, 11 and 14,
Project. As part of since the General Fund paid for these as well.
this project yA� u
proposal, we This principle also applies to the Parking Fund's use
researched the of the City's right-of-way for revenue (parking
funding source for pt meter) purposes. This is why no compensation is
"Lot 14" ou provided by the General Fund if on-sbvA- metered
Monterey and Palm Streets between Nipomo and spaces are removed for other public purposes' the
Broad. We found that it was purchased in 1976 with Paridng Fund never paid for their use to begin VC
General Fund revenues. �J
Parking Fund Financial Policies Page 5
•In the case of the recent acquisition and remodel of reasons,.our hourly rate for them is higher than in
the office building on 879 Morro Street for the the outlying areas.
Utilities Department, the Parking Fund will be fully
reimbursed for the loss of two surface parking In summary, not every activity within an
spaces next to the Palm Street structure as part of enterprise—public or private—can or should be a
this project. profit center. As such, in complying with our
enterprise fund policies, it is not necessary for every
ESIDENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS specific activity within the fund to recover its cost as
R long as the fund as a whole is adequately covering
its total costs.
As set forth in the Parking Management Plan, the UNEVIARY
Parking Fund covers more than just the downtown;
it has community-wide parking responsibilities, a
including residential parking districts throughout the
City and Railroad Square. The following is a recap of the answers to the
questions raised at the beginning of this "white
What is the fiscal impact of the residential paper."
parking districts on the Parking Find? As
summarized in Exhibit D,we took a detailed look at . ■ The Parking Fund as a distinct accounting entity
this in 1997. This was formed in 1976.
"-Fieye�iile§` [ m:resldefntial analysis shows that the
r� ■ Revenues from meters, structures(daily fees and revenues from the
residential parking passes) and fines are the Parking Fund's main
revenue sources, accounting districts fully recover g for over 80% of
• related costs; in fact, there is a small surplus (about revenues. These revenues are used in funding
$6,000 annually) the operating, debt service and capital costs
incurred in achieving the City's parking goals.
What if these costs were not fully recovered? ■ Parking Fund revenues are restricted for parling
Based on City parking goals, it would be appropriate proposes. This means parking revenues may be
to account for these costs in the Parldng Fund even used in fundis ro and projects intended
if they were not fully.offset by related revenues. g to achieve the City's�� p 1
parking goals. These goals
Our enterprise fund policy does not require that are set in a number of policy documents,
every specific activity within the fund be fully offset including the General Plan, Parking
by related revenues. Just as in the private sector, Management Plan and Financial Plan.
there are activities within each of our enterprise ■ The Parking Fund. has never subsidized the
finds that generate more revenues than others; General Fund.
prices are set accordingly based on overall business
strategies (in our case,desired policy outcomes)and ■ Parking Property purchases have been funded by
market forces. both the General Fund and the Parking Fund.
While there are several examples of this in each of ■ Proceeds from land sales (or changes in use)
our enterprise funds, there are excellent ones within should be recorded in the Parking Fund if
the Parldng Fund itself. Parking Fund revenues were used to purchase
the property. If the General Fund purchased the
For example, it is clear that the direct daily fees and site, then the proceeds may be used for parking
pass revenues from the parking structures do not or other purposes.
• come anywhere near recovering their operating, ■ Revenues from residential parking districts fully
maintenance and capital costs. Similarly,it does not recover their costs.
cost us any more to maintain parking meters in the
"core"area of downtown,but for very valid business
C
Parking Fund Financial Policies
EXHIBITS
A. 1999-01 Financial Plan: Excerpts on Parking
1. Parking Program Narrative
2. CIP Projects and Descriptions
3. Debt Service Obligations
4. General Government Cost Allocations
5. Changes in Financial Condition
B. 1998-99 Audited Financial Statements
1. Balance Sheet
2. Income Statement
3. Statement
C. Budget and Fiscal Policies: Enterprise Fund Rates and Fees O
D. Residential Parking District Cost Analysis. July 14, 1997
O
Exhibit-.,
TRANSPORTATION
PR
OGRAM. Parking OPERATION: Parking
Public Works FUND: Parking Fund
199T-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
PROGRAM COSTS ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
Staffing 382,700 422,600 429,100 433,100
Contract services 211300 235,600 247,200 244,400
Other operating expenditures 100,800 88,600 89,100 101,600
Minor capital 7,700 21,000 0 0
Total $702;300 $767,800 $765,400 $779,100
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Parking Program implements the Parking Mmmgemem Plan and directs the operation and maintenance of the City's parking
fac7itics. These facilities include 13 parking lots in the downtown and at Railroad Square,two parking garages, four residential
parloag hermit districts(Alta Vista,Monterey Heights,Park View,and Tassajara)and about 1,600 parking meters in parking lots,
on streets in the downtown retail core, and on streets in neighborhoods at the periphery of downtown. Program goals are 1)
adequate, safe,and attractive parking for visitors, customers, and employees in the downtown and Railroad Square; 2) adequate
neighborhood parking for residents; and 3)recovery of all program costs,through user charges and other program revenue. This
program has four major activities:
■ Enforcement Patrolling streets,parking lots,Parking gages,and permit districts;issuing citations;arranging for towing the
• vehicles of habitual parking offenders;recommending the installation of regulatory signs and curb markings.
• Revenue management Collecting fines, parking meter revenue, and parking fees and leases; collecting delinquent fines;
recommending parking fee and fine adjustments;modifying meters for rate adjustments;selling parking permits,bus passes,
and economy service garbage bags.
■ Maintenance Maintaining and repairing parking meters and meter posts;performing janitorial maintenance in the parking
garages and parking offices;sweeping and cleaning parking lots;sweeping and scrubbing parking garage floors.
X Garage operations. Collecting parking garage fees,providing security surveillance,maintaining customer service equipment
STAFFING SUMMARY
Regular Positions:
Pig Manager 1.0 1.0 1.01.0
Parking Enforcement Officer 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Parking Meter Repair Worker 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Secretary 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Office Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lead Parking Attendant L . L 110 L
TOTAL, 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Temporary Positions:
Full-time equivalents(FIE) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGES
None.
D-70 -
TRANSPORTATION "
PROGRAM: Parking(continued)
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
1999-01 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES )
Major City Goals
■ 1999-01: Parking and Downtown Access Plan. Adopt and begin implementing the Parking and Downtown Access
Plan addressing a balance between parking supply,parking management,and parking demand reduction.
■ 1999-01: Downtown Plan. Begin planning for the Palm II Parking Structure by preparing design studies,perforating
environmental review and acquiring properties.
Other Program Objectives: Capital Improvement Plan Projects
■ 2000-01: Reseal Railroad Square parking lot
PERFORMANCE AND 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
WORKLOAD INDICATORS ACTUAL PROJECTED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
Lot parking spaces provided 551 559 586 586
Garage parking spaces provided 668 668 668 978
Strut parking spaces provided 1,123 1,141 1,141 1,141
Citations written 30,713 30,800 31,000 31,000
Average occupancy rate at the Marsh Street Garage 91% 92% 93% 90%
Average occupancy rate at the Palm Street Garage 77% 806/0 80% 80%
Complaints about garage operations 348 333 320 320
Percentage of uncontested citations written 98% 97% 97% 97°/
Percentage of citations successfully collected 83%. 84% 84% 84
Ratio of actual vs.potential parking meter revenue 50% 55% 58% 58
Percentage of meters requiring repair 38% 9% 7% 7%
D-71
Exhibit,A, Z
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DETAIL AND PHASING-TRANSPORTATION
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED
Sidewalk-Madonna Road at SLO Creek Bridge'
Environmental Review 25,000
Design 76,000
Construction 216,000
Construction Management 38,000
Sidewalk-Oceanaire-fluasna Area . 600,000-
Total Pedestrian/Bikeways 430,000 215,000 1,404,000 1,583,000
Northerly Quadrant Parking Structure
Study 100,000
Environmental Review 150,000
Land Acquistion 200,000
Design 1,300,000
Railroad Square Lot Resealing 60,000
Vehicle Replacement
Mid-Size Sedan 20,000
Total Parking 120,000 410,000 1,300,000
o
Transit Transfer Center
Study 15,000
Capital Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Bus Stops 40,000
Bus Replacements 825,000 825,000
Total Transit 1050000 875,000 50,000 875,000
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION $49838,000 $8,277,000 57,035,000 $8,121,000
Phasing-AQ amounts are for construction or equipment acquisition unless otherwise indicated
•
E-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT EXPENDITURES BY SOURCE- ENTERPRISE&AGENCY FUNDS
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
BUDGET BUDGET PROPOSED PROPOSED
PARKiNG FUND
Northemly Quadrant Parking Structure 100,000 350,000 1,300,000
Railroad Square Lot Resealing 60,000
Vehicle Replacement Mid-Size Sedan 20,000
* Office Application Software 2,400
Total Parking Fund 120,000 412,400 1,300,000
TRANSIT FUND
Transit Transfer Center 15,000
Capital Maintenance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Bus Stops 40,000
Bus Replacements 825,000 825,000
Total Transit Fund 105,000 875,000 50,000 875,000
O D -
Parking Lot Paving 36,500
Vehicle&Equipment Replacement
Triplex Mower 25,000
Cushman cart and greens mower 20,000 .
Four Wheel Drive Pickup Truck _ 20,000
Total Golf Fund 25,000 36,500 20,000 20,000
WHALE ROCK FUND
Old Creek Habitat Plan 100,000
Pipeline Relocation 1,090,000
Energy Efficient Motor Upgrade 60,000
Intake Valve Replacement 95,000
Vehicle Replacements:Service Trucks 30,000 25,000
Total Whale Rock Fund 1,220,000 85,000 95,000
TOTAL ENTERPRISE &
AGENCY FUNDS $6,357,800 $14,0019800 $79485,800 $24,6429100
Project funded by more than one source
•
B-25
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
•PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS—TRANSPORTATION
• Constructing a. sidewalk on the south side of. TRANSIT
Madonna Road on the bridge crossing San Luis
Obispo Creek will cost $25,000 for
environmental work in 2001-02, $76,000 for Transit Transfer Center(1999-00)
design in 2001-02; and $254,000 for Studying, in depth, two potential sites for an off-
construction in 2002-03. street multimodal transit transfer site in the
• Replacing damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk downtown will cost$15,000 in 1999-00.
and replacing troublesome street trees in the
residential area south of Madonna Road and east Bus Replacements(2000-03)
of Los Osos Valley Road will cost $600,000 in • Buying three new buses to replace buses 128,
2001-02. 129,and 136 will cost$825,000 in 2000-01
• Buying three new buses to replace buses 130,
PARKING 131,and 132 will cost$825,000 in 2002-03
Northerly Quadrant.Parking Structure(1999-03)
Acquiring property and preparing construction
documents for a northerly quadrant parking
structure in the downtown will cost $100,000 for
design studies in 1999-00, $410,000 for
•environmental review and property acquisition in
2000-01, and $1,300,000 for design, plans and
specifications in 2002-03.
Railroad Square Parking Lot Resealing(2000-01)
Resealing the parking lot at Railroad Square will
cost$60,000 in 2000-01.
Vehicle Replacement(1999-00)
Replacing one sedan with one late model used mid-
size sedan will cost$20,000 in 1999-00.
•
&34
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS - 1EXI1ILlit-13
ANNUAL PAYMENTS BY FUNCTION O
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection 20000
Fire&Environmental Safety 238,000 237,400 238,800 237,600
Total Public Safety 238,000 237,400 . 238,800 257,600
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Wastewater Service 2,135,700 2,135,900 2,135,700 2,135,700
Water Service 1,429,000 1,436,000 1,056,700 1,213,300
Total Public Utilities 31564,700 3,571,900 3,192,400 3,349,000
TRANSPORTATION
Streets and Flood Control 381,600 382,000 381,600 382,700
Pig 661,300 650,500 649,900. 1,076,400
Total Transportation 1,042,900 1,032,500 1,031,500 1,459,100
LEISURE,CULTURAL&SOCIAL SERVICES
Cultural Services 12,600 12,500 12,600 75,000
Parks and Recreation 566,400 570,300 490,900 625,700
Social Services 73,000 325,800 327,800
Total Leisure,Cultural&Social Services 579,000 655,800 829,300 19028,500_
GENERAL GOVERNMENT J
Begs 112,500 112,200 112,800 .112,300
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS $5,5379100 $516091800 $5,404,800 $6,206,500
Proposed 1999-01 Financings
Water Re-Use Project
During 2000-01,a project financing with net proceeds in the amount of$8,900,000 is planned to pay for the design and
construction of a distribution system to convey reclaimed water to various points of use throughout the City. Annual
debt service requirements are estimated to be$623,000 beginning in 2001-02 to be paid from the Water Fund.
Parking Improvements
During 1999-00,aproject financing with net proceeds in the amount of$5.4 million is planned to pay for expanding the
Marsh Street parking garage. Annual debt service requirements are estimated to be$425,000 beginning in 2000-01 to
be paid from the Parking Fund.
Athletic Fields,Downtown and Police&adon F.Vansian Property Purchases
Daring 1999-00,a project financing with net proceeds of about$3.2 million is planned to pay for acquiring athletic
fields,downtown and Police Station expansion properties. Annual net debt service requirements are estimated to be
about$245,000 in 2000-01 to be paid from the General Fund
Refinancing the 1988 and 1990 Ce Wfmcates of Participation(COP's) O
During 1999-00,the City plans to refrnsace$6.5 million in outstanding bond debt due to favorable interest rates that
WM save the City approximately$113,600 annually in debt service payments($55,100 for the 1998 Water COP's and
$58,500 for the 1990 C7OP%).
F-2
FINANCIAL AND STA i1STICAL TABLES
Exhibit A•4
• INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS -REMMURSEMENT TRANSFERS
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01
ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
General Fund (2,445,100) (2,598,300) (2,673,700) (2,754,500)
Community Development Block Grant Fund 64,800 91,000 91,300 94,600
Enterprise and Agency Funds
Water 914,100 988,300 1,017,900 1,048,400
Sewer 782,300 814,600 839,000 864,200
Parking 311,000 320,300 329,900 339,800
Transit 207,200 213,400 219,800 226,400
Golf 93,300 96,100 99,000 102,000
Whale Rock Commission 72,400 74,600 76,800 79,100
Total Enterprise and Agency Funds 2,380,300 2,507,300 2,582,400 .2,659,900
NET REEMBURSEMENT TRANSFERS $0 $0 $0 $0
Sunimary of Purpose i
Ali of the City's General Government and CIP Project Engineering programs are initially accounted and budgeted
for in the General Find.However,time support service programs also benefit the Citys CDBG,enterprise and
agency fiord operations,and accordingly,transfers are made from these funds to reimburse the General Fundfor
these services.These transfers are based on a Cost Allocation Plan prepared for this purpose which distributes
time shared costs in a uniform,consistent manner in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
• Copies of the most current Cost Allocation Plan are available from the Department of Finance upon request For
fiscal years 1999-01,the following is a summary of total general government,CIP project engineering and facilities
use costs,and the percentage level supported by the General,CDBG,Enterprise,and Agency Funds
1999-00 2000-01
General Government Programs
City Council 134,800 131,600
General Administration 0
City Administration 445,500 450,100
Public Works Administration 482,600 485,500
Transportation Planning dt Engineering 302,200 284,000
Parks&Recreation Administration 381,600 385,800
Legal Services 280,000 292,600
City Clerk Services 330,400 351,800
Organizational Support Services
Finance,Human Resources,information Systems,and Geodata Services 2,452,000 2,441,900
Risk Management and insurance Expenditures 797,900 810,600
Radio Communications Services 123,000 124,700
Other Support Services(telephones,copiers,etc) 475,200 435,200
Buildings and Vehicle Maintenance 1,090,300 I,107,7A0
Total General Government Programs 7,295,300 7M1,000
CIP Project Engineering Program 910,600 911,100
Facilities and Equipment Use 2,745,200 2,827,600
Total Reimbursed Programs 10,951,300 11,039,700
Percent Funded By
General Fund 75% 75%
Community Development Block Grant Fund l% l%
Enterprise and Agency Funds els
• Total Reimbursed Programs 100% 100%
H-10
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
ExhlbitA-5�
PARKING FUND
1997-98 1998-99 . 1999-00 2000-01
ACTUAL BUDGETED BUDGET BUDGET
Revenues
Service Charges
Parking Meter Collections
Lots 399,200 404,400 445,060 445,000
Streets 704,500 715,500 801,000 806,500
Parking Structure Collections 277,300 275,000 290,000 316,000
Long-Term Parking Revenues 173,000 175,500 186,000 191,000
Lease Revenues 115,400 127,000 125,000 130,000
Parking In-Lieu Fees 92,300 107,900 95,000 95,000
Other Service Charges 20,800 29,900 25,000 25,000
Total Service Charges 1,782,500 1,835,200 1,967,000 2,002,500
Investment and Property Revenues 292,900 235,000 235,000 235,000
Fines and Forfeitures 383,000 552,000 480,000 480,000
Total Revenues 2;458,400 2,622,200 2,682,000 2,717,500
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation 702,300 767,800 765,406 779,100
General Government 311,000 320,300 329;900 339,800
Total Operating Programs 1,013,300 1,088,100 1,095,300 11118,900
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 424,300 6,865,400 120,000 412,40
Debt Service 661,300 650,500 649;900 . 1,076,400
Total Expenditures 2,098,900 8,604,000 1,865,200 2;607,700
Other Sources(Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing 5,400,000
Potential MOA Adjustments (900) (3,200) (10,500)
Total Other Sources(Uses) 5,3992100 (39200) (10,500)
Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 359;500 (582,700) 813,600 99,300
Working Capital,Beginning of Year 3,067,600 3,427,100 .2,844,400 3,658,000
Working Capital,End of Year 53,4279100 $21844,400 $37658,000 $3,757,300
O
(3-20
�
OO � O
IN,
8
O O O O O O O OOO O
N 00 � %O OI— ' 00 lOOOO OO , OO
�ep� 000
N M N een � N 00 b " %O 00
%O 00 ;a
C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
WL 4q N M 00 O1 CK N O eT %O. h V-
00
qcr 00 Nen CD CD e= A n ao %nto in %n
h M N 'R O en �O O 00. �O l- N
ti
N
d
U
Q
N
N
y
Q � C
b y GMr
r a
ch
o o
toim
d
O rA 8 1'
y q _
O iil d N O C.' f' tr
DD b d
lz tu
a
O
W J 2 0 m � uai a � a4 O
CD
F
f�+ paU 010, o0 000 0 0.000000 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a v cn N 00 en o " et %0 ON r en .r
rA O W; %6 N lz to 00 O 00 O r c+i O
W b ~ t n h N enC-4N .4 in N 000
t+1 M N O� N. N O R
w �
V M 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Cl
.. 'T — N NO O\ N C O It N It O en [. R h
Or+ .h. W R (� N n O V V' o0 h O� ?
O M �G '. 'R O� N of O O v1et
N 00 O h h N It e- O h h �.
en
fA 4q
U
Qu92
vN� p V •d
CW) cc
�/��71 Y, > O ... � bQb td ion •a. y�
•� l0
GO
u' Exhibit y
en 00000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o e Clcl� 0
a <D 4D Q O O O O O. O O O O O O O
000 O [� ri
a h h N M I, O 00 ON
.. �O O� m !O 00 O O� M N lA
M— IT M O en en
.r N •-+ rl �D �D
O O O Co O O CIO O O .O O .O O O O O
0 0 00 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O
00 of a %O t C4. M 0% -e en O� O r+ 00 e w N
v e- 00 O,N N O N r O N cc en h e� h
hM ON 1,M O eel N l- %n Mr- O M IVefl O
V N ..r Q 00 M ... M N 00 N -It e0 r- Q
00
Ch
Ge
Gn
G7 0
sakW
Q 0
z�
Urh
� U
O
a
oO � O� O
a
zen
aaWM
w
O � A
WWW
> Wa
as
Oa
" d o
U
MCIO
U
aW-
ion
Wo
.3 o WW � " ez� m w
49 ag 93
F4
� Cp
A. � � . ' . �
o
Exxhibitlg.-:�
• 0 0000 00 00 0
coo 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0
r+N N l� M O.•• �t .•r .•-� � N �D
O M O % N CIF%6 N O� O� M Y1 00
.�+b M N:et 'IT
v
a OO O O O O O O O O O O O ,
a 000 O 000 O O O CD O
c+1 I�N 'V� V�%C 00 00 l t� M �O O�
00\0 00 M kn V1 %n [� l- V1 00 m
00 R 00 h \O 00 •+ O O Oct,
� V'
M [— M N W) N M N N N N 7 l�
,V' Q
00 v
O�
� fiH f19
a
0
W
0
S
3 �
U � U
O vp�
U � 0
UD
N
m
w IFN
43
sm
W N d
O Jq�7 f�a� O
W V N W C p q C U •f� .p
v y e�pd, •C� i� �6p d..
w C9q
'" A,
.a.a�a z .qoa•�'� Z Q z A
C
a C> 0 000g 0 CD o o o o O
o 0 000
%o %o 00 C4 (71 v �+ r (71 v_ m %0
N fel 'a1
a O O 0000 Cl O O O O O
^' O O 0000 O O O O O O
Ch IT N in m t, Yl '7 It � Vt O�
N en
t- h .N. M 0000 N O m
00 m .i m ej N 00 r- l�
00
0�
N 69 69 69 649
a
O
w
W
O
d . -
U wO
Pt U
^C)
Opy � > )o
�ry
V
►�+ U WC m
«a C o p
M a p I
ca
d
m N C
q
^A O F 1+' l cclo0 y �+ a
O ' 0.0
bo C cc OS'
d � YJ
cai.j tC3 td 1q'•
to R b SGG3
Y qxo
^ q
C o . q "C!.d pyo '17 C u •}�
G �� � !y•� u u V. O •v C ,cy b
bQ
ciowl
A ~ O
7S d o Z
x z
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES 'b G
�UDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
background information in setting fees for operations, capital outlay, and debt service- of
several reasons: the following enterprise programs: water, sewer
and parking.
a. They reflect the "market" for these fees
and can assist in assessing the B. Golf. Golf program fees and rates should fully
reasonableness of San Luis Obispo's cover direct operating costs. Because of the
fees. nine-hole nature of the golf course with its focus
on youth and seniors, subsidies . from the
b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as General Fund.to cover indirect costs and capital
a benchmark for how cost-effectively improvements may be considered by the
San Luis Obispo provides its services. Council as part of the Financial Plan process.
2. However, fee surveys should never be the C. Transit. As set forth in the Short-Range Transit
sole or primary criteria in setting City fees Plan, the City will strive to cover at least thirty
as there are many factors that affect how percent of transit operating costs with fare
and why other communities have set their revenues.
fees at their levels. For example:
D. Ongoing Rate Review. The City will review
a. What level of cost recovery is their fee and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as
intended to achieve compared with our required to ensure that they remain appropriate
• cost recovery objectives? and equitable.
b. what costs have been considered in E. Franchise and In-Lien Fees. In accordance
computing the fees? with long-standing practices, City will treat the
c. when was the last time that their fees water and sewer funds in the same manner as if
were comprehensively evaluated? they were privately owned and operated. In
d. What level of service do they provide addition to setting rates at levels necessary to
compared with our service or fully cover the cost of providing water and
sewer service, this means assessing reasonable
performance standards?
franchise and property tax in-lieu fees.
e. Is their rate structure significantly
different than otos and what is it 1. Franchise fees.for water and sewer service
intended to achieve? are based,on the state-wide standard for
public utilities like electricity and gas: 2%
These can be very difficult questions to of gross revenues from operations. The
address in fairly evaluating fees among appropriateness of charging the water and
different communities. As such, the sewer funds a reasonable franchise fee .for
comparability of our fees to other the use of City streets is further supported
communities should be one factor among by the results of recent studies in Arizona,
many that is considered in setting City fees. California, Ohio and Vermont which
concluded that the leading cause for street
ENTERPRISE FUND FEES AND RATES resurfacing and reconstruction is street cuts
and trenching for utilities.
•A.. Water, Sewer and Parking. The City will set 2. . For the water fund, property tax in-lieu fees
fees and rates at levels which fully cover the are established under the same methodology
total direct and indirect costs—including used in assessing property tax m-lieu fees to
B-10
C Exhibit J> .
MEMORANDUM
July 14, 1997
TO: Bill Statler,Finance Director
FROM: Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT DISTRICT
EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES
In follow-up to the July 2nd meeting regarding the operation costs and net revenues for
administering the current city-wide residential parking permit districts, the following is the
breakdown for revenues and expenditures:
Revenues
1145 annually @
Citations Issued. 85% collection rate Total
50%paid directly 572 citations @$20 $11,440
25%paid 1'penalty 286 citations @$30 $8,580
10%paid 2dpenalty 114 citations $40 .$4.560
Total $24,580
Ex enditures
Category Basis Total
$30.65* per hour @ average of 5 $6,130
Enforcement hrs a week for 40 weeks
Citation processing $0.82 for 1145 $939
Permit Processing $15.60 per residence for 354 $5,522
households
Annual Maintenance Sigas and poles $920
Total ** $13,511
Includes benefits, equipment and all indirect costs per adopted hourly rate schedule
Note:Expenditures do not include one-time installation costs($1,500 to$2,500 depending on
the size of the district)
Net Revenues S119069
The above figures represent the basic operating and revenue figures for administering the four
parking districts. However, they DO NOT take into account the fact that when enforcement
personnel are in the outlying permit districts we are not getting visibility for meter payment.
Therefore, the net difference in terms of overall.revenue is really less, conservatively $3,000 to
$5,000 annually (loss of meter payments @ 25 per day @ 50.60 x 5 days = $75 x 40 weeks =
$3,000).
Estimated Net Revenues-Including Lost Meter Revenues `;