The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-02-16 DTPC Packetjjlwater THE BIRTHPLACE O F MINNESOTA DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:30 AM Conference Room 213, City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 26, 2012 MINUTES 3. NEW BUSINESS 3.01. Credit Card Sales in Parking Ramp 3.02. Parking System Revenue & Rate Structure 3.03. Special Event Requests 4. OTHER BUSINESS 4.01. Update on City Council Decisions 5. ADJOURNMENT Item 2 DRAFT Stillwater Downtown Parking Commission Meeting Minutes January 26, 2012 Commissioners present: Aimee Peletier, chair/business; Jeff Johnson, vice - chair /resident David Korte, secretary/resident; Sherri Hopfe Franke, business; Dave Junker, resident; Gerald Helmberger, resident; Daren Anderson, resident City staff present: John Gannaway, police chief; Doug Menikheim, councilmember; Dennis Pasket, parking enforcement officer; Bill Turnblad, community development director Submitted by: David Korte agenda discussion action call to order Aimee called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. election of 2012 officers According to the Parking Commission bylaws a Chairperson and a Vice Chairperson are to be elected annually by a majority of Commissioners present at the first meeting of the calendar year. Aimee requested nominations for the position of secretary and David Korte was nominated. With no further nominations made for that position a motion was made for David to be secretary. The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. Aimee requested nominations for the position of Vice Chairperson and Jeff Johnson was nominated. With no further nominations made for that position a motion was made for Jeff to be Vice Chairperson. The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. Aimee requested nominations for the position of Chairperson and she was nominated. With no further nominations made for that position a motion was made for Aimee to be Chairperson. The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. approval of November minutes A motion was made and seconded to approve the December 15, 2011 meeting minutes. The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. David will forward the approved minutes to the Stillwater city clerk's office. approval of agenda Doug requested that a discussion of the transient docking of boats be added to the agenda and Aimee had information on a horse drawn carriage ride that she suggested be added. But after discussion it was decided that the Park Commission should address the docking issue and the city council should address the horse drawn carriage. A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda as presented; the motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. agenda discussion action credit card sales in parking Bill informed the commission that when the pay equipment was installed in the Bill will include this item on the ramp parking ramp it followed the Cardholder Information Security Program (CISP), which was the industry standard at the time. Since then a new "Payment Card Industry Data February agenda. Security Standard" (PCI -DSS) has replaced the CISP Standard. The equipment in the ramp does not meet the new requirements and if not upgraded to the new requirements the ramp would have to stop using credit cards on March 31, 2012. At the December 2011 meeting the Parking Commission decided to keep credit cards as a payment option, since the ramps customers use them so frequently. The cost to upgrade the credit card equipment is about $17,000. City staff are presently waiting for the equipment vendor to present information on an alternative hardware configerartion that may make upgrading less expensive. This information will hopefully be available for the February Parking Commission meeting. Commissioners approved Bill's recommendation that this agenda item be tabled until next month's meeting. 2012 Parking Guide Dennis requested input on possible changes in the Downtown Stillwater Public Dennis, will implement the suggested Parking Guide before having the 2012 brochure printed. It was suggested that the changes, get an updated list of "Events" "Trolley" stops and "Minnesota Zephyr" be removed from the map and that the from the Chamber for the brochure and bathrooms in Lot #6 be added. There was also discussion about the number of then have the 2012 Downtown Stillwater brochures needed and whether or not to mail them with the city's utilities bills. Public Parking Guide printed. Dennis said he would implement the suggestions and get an updated list of "Events" from the Chamber for the brochure. parking system revenue & Bill presented this agenda item with background, discussion points and staff Bill will provide financial reports on rate structure recommendations. The Parking commission is presently re- examining the rate downtown parking revenue and costs for structure for the entire downtown parking system. Critical information for the analysis would include historical and projected revenue and expenses. Given the complexity of the system, city staff thinks it advisable to establish a committee to work through issues and options. the February meeting. During discussion some Commission members thought that re- examining the rate structure for the entire downtown parking system could best be done by the Parking Commission and did not believe forming a committee to work through the issues and options would be the best approach. Commission members requested financial reports be presented and the Commission then take a look at how best to re- examine the rate structure for the entire downtown parking system. Bill will table this agenda item to the next meeting at which time he will provide the needed financial reports. Draft 2 agenda discussion action special event - Cruisin' on The Croix Bill presented the Cruisin' On The Croix application for a 2012 Special Event Permit. The event organizers want to reserve Municipal Lots 4, 5 and the northern portion of 7 for ten Wednesday evenings between June 6 and August 29. After some discussion the commission agreed the 2012 Fee Schedule should apply. When city staff applied the 2012 Fee Schedule to the parking spaces requested, the number requested and the dates requested the total came to $2,325. A motion was made and seconded to apply the 2012 Fee Schedule to the Cruisin' On The Croix's request for a charge of $2,325. The motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. Bill will forward the Commission's recommendation to the city council. update on city council decisions Bill updated the commission on recent city council actions pertaining to the Parking Commission recommendations: • The council approved the 2012 Parking Fee proposed rates with no changes. • The council did not approve the commission's recommendation that all expenses on Lot #9 (which will be used as a trailhead for the Browns Creek Trail) come out of the city's General Fund and not the Parking Enterprise Fund. The council suggested using revenue from permit parking on Main Street for Lot #9. general discussion Several commission members raised concern about the dumpster located in the turn lane at 108 North Main, in front of the former Savories restaurant. John will follow up to see to there are proper permits for the dumpster and check for safety concerns. next meeting The next meeting will be Thursday, February 23, 2011 at 8:30 a.m., Conference Room 213, City Hall. David will send out a draft of the minutes before the next meeting. Bill will send out an agenda and supporting documents before the meeting. adjourn A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 a.m. and the motion passed in a unanimous voice vote. Draft 3 Item 3.02 jj!water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA TO: Downtown Parking Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: February 10, 2012 RE: Parking System Revenue & Rate Structure Background The Parking Commission is in the initial stages of re- examining the rate structure for the entire downtown parking system, including the parking ramp. The goal is to determine whether existing revenue streams are sufficient to fund all operational and capital costs for the system. Major Steps There are five major steps in this rate structure re- examination. 1. Determine annual operational costs. 2. Determine whether sufficient revenue is generated annual to fully fund operational costs. 3. Determine capital costs. 4. Determine whether sufficient revenue is generated annually for cash reserves to fully fund capital costs. 5. Recommend a rate structure to the City Council that generates sufficient revenue to fully fund operational and capital costs. This month the Parking Commission is asked to consider the first two steps. Next month steps three and four will be on the agenda. And then a decision will need to be made to take on step five with a study committee or simply as a matter of routine monthly Parking Commission business. Step One The first step is to determine what the annual operational costs are for the entire system. These costs tend to be fairly stable from year to year in the parking lots. And when we have gained enough experience with the parking ramp, they too should be stable and predictable. January 20, 2012 Page 2 In the attached preliminary reports you will see more details on expenses, but summarized categories are included here. Parking Lots - 2011 Operational Expenses Description Personnel services Supplies Services & charges Miscellaneous Total Parking Ramp - 2011 Operational Expenses Description Personnel services Supplies Services & charges Miscellaneous Step Two Total Amount $97,386.51 $14,793.43 $24,952.19 $18,440.16 $155,572.291 Amount $0.00 $3,399.18 $34,743.09 $3,844.81 $41,987.08 The second step is to determine the annual revenue, and whether it covers annual operational costs. Parking Lots - 2011 Revenue Descri .lion Monthly parking permits Special event parking fees Lot 1 Lot 2 Tickets and fines Refunds, etc. Interest earnings Amount $37,918.45 $1,013.22 $88,725.45 $39,403.91 $38,954.04 - $509.11 $205,505.96 Total ' This figure does not include the $74,404 capital expense for equipment last year. Capital expenses will be considered separately from operating expenses. January 20, 2012 Page 3 Parking Ramp - 2011 Revenue Description Monthly passes Lowell Inn Transient sales (cash and credit cards) Total Amount $13,518.92 $12,706.902 $26,816.23 $53,042.05 A comparison of revenue and operational expenses shows that the ramp generated $11,054.97 more than needed for its operational costs. The parking lots generated $49,933.67 more than needed for operational costs. Next Month The question that will be considered next month is whether the $60,988.64 in operational profit from the entire parking system is sufficient to fully fund all capital costs. Capital costs include such items as new ticket dispensing equipment, parking lot seal coating, parking lot surface replacement, parking ramp structural maintenance costs, etc. This year, for example, the parking enterprise cash reserve decreased because the $74,404 capital expenditure for parking lot equipment exceeded the total amount of operational profit in the parking lots for the year. And though a $74,404 equipment expenditure is a serious amount of money, it really does not compare in magnitude to the $250,000 it could cost to resurface one parking lot. bt attachments: 2011 Preliminary Parking Enterprise Fund Financial Report 2011 Preliminary Parking Ramp Financial Report 2 This figure includes a $4,590 credit toward the City's purchase of land for the ramp. In July a cash only system was instituted. 2011 PrelimminaryFinancial Report Parking Enterprise Fund 2011 2011 Description Approved Prelim actual Revenue 720 - 0000 - 3140 -0105 Parking Permits $33,000.00 $37,918.45 720 - 0000 - 3140 -0115 Parking Permits - events $0.00 $1,013.22 720 - 0000 - 3560 -0120 Parking Machine S Lot $70,000.00 $88,725.45 720 - 0000 - 3560 -0340 Parking Machine River Lot $40,000.00 $39,403.91 720 - 0000 - 3610 -0100 Parking Tickets $25,000.00 $26,371.24 720 - 0000 - 3610 -0200 Parking Fines (County) $6,000.00 $12,582.80 -$3.00 720 - 0000 - 3810 -0200 Interest Earnings $8,000.00 720 - 0000 - 3870 -0100 Refunds & Reimbursements $0.00 720 - 0000 - 3880 -0200 Cash over /short $0.00 - $506.11 REVENUE TOTAL $182,000.00 $205,505.96 Expenses PERSONNEL SERVICES $106,429.00 $97,386.51 720 - 4720 -2000 Office supplies $500.00 $128.24 720 - 4720 -2101 General supplies $5,000.00 $5,514.65 720 - 4720 -2100 Auto fuel $3,000.00 $5,490.55 720 - 4720 -2111 Paper /Forms $700.00 $3,443.00 720 - 4720 -2201 Equip. repair supplies $4,000.00 $186.11 720 - 4720 -2302 Other minor equip $200.00 $30.88 SUPPLIES $13,400.00 $14,793.43 720 - 4720 -3099 Professional services $10,000.00 $1,218.38 720 - 4720 -3102 Postage $700.00 $926.86 720 - 4720 -3201 Seminars /Conference Fees $100.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -3202 Meals $100.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -3203 Housing $250.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -3204 Training and Education $2,000.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -3400 Printing and Publishing $5,000.00 $2,239.65 $242.00 720 - 4720 -3500 General Insurance $7,856.00 720 - 4720 -3702 Equip Repair Charges $2,500.00 720 - 4720 -3707 Maintenance Agreements $3,000.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -3709 Sealcoating $0.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -3900 Sales tax $8,000.00 $2,325.30 720 - 4720 -3906 Admin Charges - General Fund $18,000.00 $18,000.00 SERVICES & CHARGES $57,506.00 $24,952.19 720 - 4720 -4009 Loss on credit transactions $0.00 $1,214.00 720 - 4720 -4099 Misc charges $1,000.00 $4,185.16 MISCELLANEOUS $1,000.00 $5,399.16 2/9/2012 720 - 4720 -5200 C/O & Improvements $0.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -5300 C/O Machinery & Equipment $0.00 $74,404.00 720 - 4720 -5310 C/O MIS Comupter Equipment $0.00 $0.00 720 - 4720 -5400 Automotive Equipment _ $0.00 $0.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0.00 $74,404.00 720 - 4721 -3706 Repair charges $0.00 $0.00 720 - 4721 -3707 Maintenance Agreement $17,500.00 $13,041.00 RIVERVIEW LOT (3rd St) $17,500.00 $13,041.00 REVENUE TOTAL $182,000.00 $205,505.96 EXPENSE TOTAL $195,835.00 $229,976.29 2011 BALANCE - $13,835.00 - $24,470.33 Beginning Balance Ending Balance CASH IN BANK $528,013.98 $507,174.85 2/9/2012 2011 Preliminary Financial Report Parking Ramp 2011 2011 Account Description Approved Prelim actual Revenue 725 - 0000 - 3140 -0105 Parking Sales $48,000.00 $53,042.05 $50,782.31 figure includes $4,590 land credit to Inn Expenditures 725 - 4725 - 2101 -0000 General Supplies $3,500.00 $2,271.56 725 - 4725 - 2302 -0000 Other Minor Equipment $3,500.00 $1,127.62 725 - 4725 - 3099 -0000 Other professional services $2,000.00 $7,134.46 725 - 4725 - 3101 -0000 Telephone $3,800.00 $2,301.14 725 - 4725 - 3400 -0000 Printing And Publishing $0.00 $0.00 725- 4725 - 3500 -0000 General Insurance $0.00 $0.00 725- 4725 - 3600 -0000 Electricity $18,000.00 $19,562.57 725- 4725 - 3702 -0000 Equipment Repair Charges $4,000.00 $111.20 725- 4725 - 3707 -0000 Maintenance Agreements $5,000.00 $2,925.29 Elevator maint agreement 725 - 4725 - 3900 -0000 Transit tax $2,500.00 $2,708.43 725 - 4725 - 4099 -0000 Miscellaneous Charges $1,400.00 $1,744.81 Credit card fees 725 - 4725 - 5300 -0000 C/O Machinery & Equipment $0.00 $0.00 725 - 4725 - 7010 -0000 Depreciation $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $45,800.00 $41,987.08 Parking sales net revenue Monthly passes $11,800.00 $13,518.92 Lowell Inn $9,200.00 $12,706.90 with $4,590 land credit to I Transient (Cash and Credit) $27,000.00 $26,816.23 2/10/2012 24 Planning May2008 • The new face of parking (opposite): A rendering of the garage adjacent to the federal courthouse under construction in downtown Miami. Below: a new multispace meter. The • is • Is ,._a �:�r�:; �� K- ,.Ka,�•,�.'� - .,i <. riving through downtown Gainesville, Florida, recently, I was struck by several signs of a common problem affecting on- street parking: poor pricing practices. Every on- street parking space in the downtown was filled, block after block. There seemed to be no signs directing drivers to parking lots or garages. The one garage I passed was easy to miss. Later, city parking officials informed me that the facility was often half empty, although just a By Vicky Gagliano block away all the on- street spaces were taken. Why, I wondered, would drivers circle a block repeatedly, waiting at stoplights and stop signs, to find an on- street space instead of pulling into a convenient garage? The answer is simple: pricing. Parking along most of the streets in down town Gainesville is free, while daytime parking in the garage costs $1 an hour, with a flat fee of$5 after 6 p.m. So it costs nothing to park in front of your destination, provided you can find a space. No wonder few drivers use the garage. The current pricing structure actually en- courages motorists to drive around, sometimes circling blocks looking for an on- street space. In contrast, it penalizes those drivers who are doing what is best for the downtown area by quickly getting out of traffic, parking in a garage, and walking to their destination — Thereby making the streets more pedestrian- friendly. American Planning Association 25 What many cities and municipalities do not understand is that the price of parking plays a role in the management of a parking system. In the case of Gainesville, the pricing structure encourages congestion. It also makes it seem as if there is not enough parking to support downtown's parking needs, when in reality there are plenty of spaces for everyone. It's easy to see the flaws in this situation. It's not so easy to change it. Most people under- stand why a storefront located on a busy corner would command higher rent than a retail space located on a side street, but they have trouble understanding why free parking is not a right that everyone is entitled to. Ideally, they would recognize the need to make a trade -off between convenience and price. Another stumbling block is the common be- lief that downtown merchants cannot compete with outlying retail centers and strip malls unless they offer free parking. Here the solution lies in offering a balance between customer relations and proper pricing. 1.. init free parking. One approach is to make parking in garages and parking lots free for a reasonable time period, and to charge visitors for stays beyond the limit. At the same time, a charge could be added to street parking, making it more expensive than 26 Planning May 2008 133■Cal■ MS II Ziff 01.19181. 11 e a I if Parking Pays for Itself in Downtown Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, home of the University of Michigan, benefits from both big city and small town attri- butes, including a compact downtown, vibrant public spaces, and the ability to get around town on foot, bike, or bus. So it's not surprising that this city of 114,000 has attracted increasing residential interest from outside its traditional, university- centered populations — particularly among empty nesters looking for a pleasing retirement community. Rather than growing ever farther outward, Ann Arbor has decided to focus new housing in its downtown. In 2005, the city convened a Downtown Residential Task Force to identify barriers to residential development. The group s ubsequently commissioned Calthorpe Asso- ciates, the California -based urban design and planning firm, to frame a set of development strategies, including a comprehensive parking strategy. (The strategies are part of the firm's Recommended Vision & Policy Framework for Downtown Ann Arbor.) Downtown parking has been at the center of some of the city's most intransigent town- >, gown conflicts, going back to student anti -car attitudes of the 1960s. In the mid -'70s, when the student vote gained power in local elec- tions, funding for downtown parking facilities was severely cut, over the protests of business owners. After years of neglect, the city in 1992 turned over control of its seven parking structures to the newly created Downtown Development Authority. The DDA, a quasi - public agency, agreed to finance a $40 million garage repair and replacement program, using funds from a tax increment financing district. Since then, the agency has managed not only to revitalize the garages, but also to get an innovative parking plan adopted and to enact some progressive transportation demand man- agement programs. They include a universal transit pass (participating employers pay $5 for annual, unlimited -ride bus passes for their employees); a fare -free circulator bus service between the university and downtown; and the getDowntown program, which promotes multimodal commuting to downtown jobs, Parking practices The DDA's core philosophy is that parking should pay for itself. This approach is at the heart of the city's current parking management practices, which include: • No minimum requirements. There are no parking requirements for as -of -right develop- ment within the downtown (similar to changes made recently in downtown districts in San Francisco and Portland). • Shared parking. Nearly all downtown trip generators rely on a consolidated inventory of shared public parking (similar to recently adopted practices in several California cities and in Montgomery County, Maryland, park- ing districts). • Public control. All public off- street parking facilities are publicly controlled either by the DDA or the university. Steps to a plan The debate over parking in Ann Arbor revolves around the question of quantity: What is the right amount of parking for downtown? The WASHINGTON_ T 500 Feet Parking Occupancy On Street Off Street 0 - 50% 50.1 - 75% 75.1 - 85% 85.1 - 100% Over 100% 1 1 Study Area • 0 - 75% O 75.90% • Over 90% Parking Capacity Dot size proportional to total number of apacns • 10 1,000 State Beater Parking in a college town: how much and where. business community generally claims that parking is inadequate to support economic development. A large contingent of mostly downtown and near - downtown residents counters that there is too much parking, and that it undermines alternative modes and urban design ideals. Unlike the past, today's university students seem to be on the "more parking" side. They're as likely to ship their SUVs from their East Coast homes for the semester as to petition for more downtown bike lanes. So it's all the more surprising that the DDA was able to get its parking plan adopted. The effort started in September 2006, when the DDA, with support from Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates, initiated inventory and occupancy surveys for all parking controlled by the agency, including all metered on- street spaces within the downtown. Questionnaires concerning parking experiences and percep- tions, as well as modal patterns and preferences, were placed on the windshields of cars parked on- and off - street. In addition, parkers were interviewed at various locations. In all, nearly 400 completed surveys were returned and more than 20 interviews were conducted. That was followed by a series of focus groups, workshops, and public open houses. In March 2007, the project team kicked off a week of outreach meetings, focusing on policy options and supporting strategies. The meetings offered a chance for the public and representatives of the city council, planning commission, Ann Arbor Transportation Au- thority, and DDA to learn about and discuss various strategies —from unbundling parking from housing costs to using valet services as a way of expanding evening curb parking capacity. Later that spring, focus groups reviewed the team's preliminary parking recommendations. Many participants were pleasantly surprised to note that some of their proposals were echoed by an opposing interest group. Extended eve- ning transit service, for example, was popular with both the alternative anodes group and the business community. Specific recommendations were refined in follow -up focus groups, where funding pos- sibilities and implementation responsibilities were identified. The transportation authority, with its overstressed budget, listened with in- terest as DDA representatives put forth their agency as a potential financial backer of both express bus operations and extended evening transit services. By the second open house, it was apparent that those who wished to yell about parking in Ann Arbor had largely done so. New ideas were floated and debated, but the storm had passed. Results On June 11, 2007, the project team presented its recommendations for a downtown parking policy and set of supporting actions to the city council. The material was comprehensive, pro- gressive, and thoroughly vetted. The extensive public process, which might have raised concerns about watering down the final recommenda- tions, instead gave weight to many challenging recommendations. Among them: • Approach parking holistically and exhaust demand management options before investing in new supply. • Create a parking benefit district pilot program (in a section of downtown where the concept was well received), including setting meter rates based on availability targets and returning revenue to local improvements. • Implement commuter express bus service —a completely new type of service and ridership market for the local transportation authority. • Initiate valet parking services —a publicly managed service that would meet evening park- ing demand; make use ofavailable but little -used off - street capacity; and allow customers to "park once" while visiting many destinations. • Adopt pricing strategies. Replace monthly permits with debit accounts, tying costs to levels of use and rates to levels of demand. The city council unanimously approved all of the recommendations. Today, people in Ann Arbor still yell about parking. Some dream of unpaved commutes to downtown jobs, while others envision a sea of free parking around their business. But over the course of a year, the community managed to have a serious discussion about parking and constructed an official, comprehensive down- town parking policy based on shared goals and community values, a policy that could playa big part in transforming Ann Arbor into a center for smart growth in the region. Tom Brown and David Fields, AICP Brown and Fields are planners at Nelson \Nygaard Consulting Associates in NewYork, which managed the Ann Arbor Downtown Parking Study. Fields serves as secretary of APA's Transportation Planning Division. American Planning Association 27 the garage. This relatively simple modification in a pricing structure offers several benefits. • It shifts motorists off the roadways, thereby reducing congestion and adding to pedestrian safety. • It helps the environment by reducing the emissions generated by additional driving and idling in congested areas. • It ensures a higher turnover of on- street spaces, allowing more people to benefit from the most convenient parking. In particular, it guarantees that on- street spaces will be available for those visitors who are willing to pay for the convenience of "front door" parking, especially those who want to conduct a quick transaction with a specific merchant. Most likely, long -term visitors will head for the garage, as will down- town employees. Meters must be upgraded Just a few weeks ago, I found a metered street parking space in downtown Savannah, Geor- gia. The cost was just 25 cents for 50 minutes, with a 10 -hour time limit. Imagine being able to park in the center of the downtown all day, right in front of the building where you work, for only $3! Even though I am entrenched in the parking industry and understand the need for parking revenues, I still get excited when I find a meter with a few minutes remaining. I found one this week with 28 minutes left. The driver who had parked there before had obviously overesti- mated how long the errand would take, and I profited from that mistake. If a different type of meter had been used —a multispace meter, for instance, I would have been required to pay the full amount, in this case, an extra 50 cents. Even that small amount adds up when you consider how often such "mistakes" happen. Over the course of a year, my half - dollar would come to more than $300 if that same scenario occurred twice a day. Multiply this amount over the total number of parking spaces and you'll see that a 500 -space parking system could generate an additional $150,000 a year. Of course, upgrading parking equipment, such as meters, can require a significant capital outlay. A traditional single -space parking meter may cost $300 to $500, while a multispace meter may cost $5,000 to $10,000 or more, depending on its features. Single -space meters offer users a simple and familiar payment system, but they are usually limited to coins, smart cards, or similar methods of payment. The newer, multispace meters and pay stations may serve up to 10 parking spaces (more in some cases) and can usually accept 28 Planning May 2008 various forms of payment, including bills and credit cards. The higher individual cost of the multi -space meters maybe justified by the lower cost of managing each parking space. A system in which meters are reset with each new vehicle will generate more revenue for a parking system than one that allows parkers to take advantage of remaining time. Depending on the parking rates and turnover of the spaces, this revenue could be substantial —as I pointed out above. In Miami, to cite one example, the cost of installing upgraded, more efficient park- ing meters has paid for itself in a substantial increase in parking revenues. To determine the long -term benefit of up- grading meters and equipment, the total cost of the improvements is generally allocated according to the projected life span of the equipment (typically five to seven years) and then spread over the total number of parking spaces served. The resulting figure can be used to calculate the breakeven point for additional revenues needed per parking space over the life of the new equipment. My studies have found that many systems would benefit from an upgrade, although some systems may only need to use their existing equipment to its fullest capability. In addition to increased revenue, technology improvements can also provide other benefits. Multispace parking meters mean fewer machines to be maintained. They simplify the revenue collection process, with a single location rather than many individual meters. They make it easier for enforcement officers to determine where meter use is heaviest and at what hours, and thus simplify reporting. Fewer meters mean fewer obstacles for pedestrians on busy sidewalks. In addition, installing new multispace meters may prompt an aggressive local marketing and branding campaign —in connection with an effort to attract patrons to a downtown entertain- ment district, for instance. Finally, multi -space meters may lead to a reduction in complaints about parking —or the lack of parking —and improve the sometimes negative perceptions of parking enforcement personnel. The meters may also allow reductions in the number of enforcement officers. Some parking meter systems can detect the presence of a vehicle in the corresponding space. This capability can be used to simplify enforcement by wirelessly notifying enforcement officers if a driver has not paid the meter. Rather than having to physically check every parking meter on every block, enforcement officers can head directly for violators. This system can also reset the meter when a vehicle exits a space to prevent drivers from getting "free" time left over from the previous driver. It should be noted that older reporting methods, if available at all, make it difficult to audit some parking areas and made theft more difficult to trace. The newer systems change that scenario. Counting spaces The new parking systems allow space counters to be integrated with signage to show drivers how many empty spaces are left in a lot or garage. At the Tampa International Airport, signs at the entrance to the economy parking garage show how many spaces are empty on each level. When patrons see that there are only 14 spaces remaining on Level but 176 spaces available on Level 4, they are willing to go immediately to Level 4. The signage at the Tampa airport reduces the time travelers must search for parking; it cuts down on garage - related traffic; and it generally creates a more user- friendly environment. Just as an inefficient parking system can create a negative image, an enjoyable parking experience can create a positive and welcoming impression. This perception may indirectly encourage driv- ers to return more often to a particular facility (or a downtown), thereby increasing parking revenues. Other (rends In addition to pricing, several other parking trends are attracting attention: shared parking, public - private partnerships, and the integration of parking within new developments. Shared parking. Although not a new idea, shared parking is becoming more common in locations with multiple land uses, where dif- ferent groups of users have different parking demands. Office buildings usually experience peak parking demand weekdays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. In contrast, movie theaters typically encounter peak demand during evening hours and on weekends. The difference in parking demand curves provides a chance to reduce parking require- ments. Other likely pairs include office build- ings and apartments or hotels; medical offices and restaurants; and golf clubs and evening entertainment venues. The benefits of shared parking go beyond cost savings. An efficient parking system puts valuable land to the highest and best use rather than overbuilding the number ofparking spaces. Depending on the land -use mix, a reduction of five percent to 15 percent is possible. Note, though, that shared- parking reductions are impossible if all users have assigned or reserved parking spaces. The Savannah River Landing, a development Shared parking in Princeton, New jersey. The 500 -space Spring Street Garage serves nearby residents, shops and restaurants, and a public library —all part of a new downtown redevelopment project. currently under construction in Savannah, is an example. Shared parking has allowed it to reduce the total number of on -site parking spaces by almost 30 percent. Public-private partnerships. Another popular trend is the use of public- private partnerships to maximize parking resources, regardless of ownership. Some cities may have a shortage of public parking spaces, while a nearby private garage has excess capacity. Similarly, a city may have surplus parking capacity, while new development does not have enough land to fulfill the zoning code's parking requirement. The solution: a partnership that allows both public and private entities to benefit. In some cases where public parking is in short supply, a local government may work with private garage owners to direct visitors to their facilities with appropriate signage. Both sides benefit: Private owners experience increased revenue, and the city may be able to defer a large capital expense for new parking. A recent study completed for Coral Gables, Florida, recommended such an approach. If, on the other hand, the city has a parking space surplus, it may be able to work out an arrangement with private developers to meet some of their parking needs in public lots or garages. The Miami Parking Authority entered into such an agreement with developers of a proposed residential development that happened ,wuuyiuumn IB'!!' _... to be adjacent to a public garage. In this case, the parking authority benefited from the added cash flow, and the developers found a way to meet zoning code requirements. Integration. Increasingly, parking is being transformed from a last- minute agenda item to a key element of almost every development project. Municipal officials and private develop- ers alike finally realize that the overall success of a downtown, shopping center, or mixed use development depends in large part on how well the parking is integrated into the overall design. Visitors expect a seamless flow from the roadway to a parking space, out of their vehicle, and to their destination. Parking that is central to a downtown or to a development will result in the desired pedestrian flow and activity that enlivens an area and creates a sense of place. To achieve this aim, planning for parking must take place in the earliest stages of every project —and every master planning process. Vicky Gagliano is a parking specialist with Timothy Haahs & Associates in Tampa, Florida. Reno revs Earlier in Planning. See "Pay As You Park," a profile of pricing advocate Donald Shoup, May 2006. 1 R r. American Planning Associa[ ion 29 New books are sprouting up at APA's PlanningBooks.com. Check out the latest model code, a compilation of articles from Planning magazine's "Overlooked America" series, and more. American Planning Association Making Great Communities Happen