CR 91-31 Parking System Changes
i Y 0:1 !
. \ 0 'J.i~- '
, C; ^' "unsen, Agenda
~ j ,'".. I!.
.,:" . "..-,... '
. January 30, 1991 .y "" Council Report: 91-31
o P K \ ~
PARKING SYSTEM CHANGES
Proposed Action.
The Parking Committee recommends adoption of the following motion:
"Move that the following changes be made to the permit parking system
for 1991:
- increase permit fees by 6% rounded to the nearest 1/2 dollar
- cut permit costs for lot #900 by 1/2.
- add 16 yellow permit spaces on loth Avenue North"
The adoption of this motion will implement changes requested by the
Parking Committee. While the Parking Committee suggested the annual
fee increase be reviewed each November, staff is recommending it be
done during the budget process.
overview.
The proposed changes have been discussed for the past several months
by the Parking committee. The changes to the permit fees were
unanimously approved by the Parking Committee.
These items were reviewed as a result of requests by the city Council
and the business community. Increasing costs have provided
justification to increasing permit fees for 1991. The fact that all
. costs associated with the parking system have increased has verified
the need for additional revenue.
While reviewing these changes, the city Council needs to keep in mind
the purpose of the parking system and whether these changes negatively
impact what it tries to accomplish.
Primary Issues to consider.
o Have the permit fees changed since 1987 and what are the
proposed fees?
o What options exist for financing the parking system?
o What future steps should be taken to address the financing
issue?
o What are the negatives to increasing the permit fees system
wide?
o How many yellow permits are sold?
o Why should lot #900 be different from the remainder of the
permit parking system?
o What impacts do these fee changes have on revenues?
o When would these changes in fees take place?
o Why the addition of permit spaces on 10th Avenue?
o Why had staff not supported this change?
o What comments did the Parking Committee have on these items?
supportinq Information
. o site Map o Background o Analysis o Letter from
7en~~~17hS o Alternatives o Recommendation First Bank
-7 ~l
/ :/ /
Bri~~- Fritsi~;~r :
Economic Development Specialist
,
.
CR: 9 1- 31
Page 2
Backqround.
During the early part of 1990 staff met with the City Council and
Parking committee to discuss the financial standing of the parking
system. The 1990 Budget had an approximate cost to the general fund
of $10,000-15,000 more than anticipated. While permit fees alone are
not expected to cover the costs of the parking system, they must help
pay a significant amount of it.
The increase in fees for 1991 would help offset expected increases for
1991. The decrease in fees for Lot #900 are being proposed for two
reasons. First, Lot #900 1S the only municipal lot located outside
what is considered the downtown retail core area. The lot has no
immediate impact on nearby businesses and should be utilized to its
capacity to provide employee parking.
Secondly, the reduced fees may entice more part-time employees to
participate in the system. If an increase in permit sales occurs it
would hopefully minimize any loss in revenues due to the cut in fees.
Several of the participating businesses have expressed support of this
change for lot #900.
. The addition of 16 yellow permit spaces on 10th Avenue is in response
to a request made by Bob Miller during a parking meeting last year.
Mr. Miller indicated that the current system, which is based on short-
term parking, is a discouragement for service oriented businesses. He
suggested that changes in local business operations warrant the re-
designation of this area as permit parking.
primary Issues to consider
Based on the above information the city council has the following
issues to consider:
o Have the permit fees changed since 1987 and what are the proposed
fees?
There have been no changes to the permit parking fees since the system
began in 1987. The current fees are the following:
- Yearly $87.00
- Quarter $24.00
- Month $11.00
The only change which has occurred to this system was in 1989 at which
time the city started selling the yearly permit. When compared to the
. other permits, it provided a small incentive for employees to purchase
it.
If permit fees are increased for 1991, the proposed fees would be as
follows:
---- -......--.... --
. CR: 91-31
Page 3
- yearly $ 92.00
- quarterly 25.50
- monthly 11. 50
0 What options exist for financing the parking system?
There are several options available for raising revenues for the
parking system.
special service district. This is an option that the Parking Committee
and City Council have discussed several times in the past. It
involves creating boundaries where a special levy is assessed within
that district. This assessment can only be for increased serVlces;
which the parking system would qualify. This district could be
created where all costs associated with parking would be paid.
Increasing permit fees. This is the option before the city Council at
this time. The city Council, during discussions in 1990, were in
favor of using this option on a inflationary basis.
. Use parkinq meters. The city Council recommended that this option not
be considered further.
Charqe different fees for parkinq ramp. A number of permit holders
have approached the parking committee in the past about undertaking
this option. The committee has not yet had an opportunity to reVlew
the impact of this option. This would consist of some sort of permit
fees which would reflect the different parking areas within the ramp.
Charge everyone who uses the ramp. The ramp was constructed with the
ability to place the fee booths at each entrance. This would then
create a fee for everyone using the ramp.
Use of parking fines. The City currently utilizes all parking fines to
supplement the revenues of the parking system. The City has no
ability to increase the amount paid for receiving a ticket as the
County controls this.
Continue to use general fund revenues. The City Council indicated that
the general fund should continue to pay a portion of the expenses
associated with parking. This is primarily due to the benefit the
remainder of the city receives for having the downtown. However,
recent changes in state Aid suggest that the amount of general fund
dollars spent on parking should be minimized.
-- 0 What future steps should be taken to address the financing issue?
staff recommends that the Parking Committee be directed to begin
taking the steps necessary to involve the business community within
this process. The special service district needs a percentage of the
land owners within the community to petition for this district. In
. Page 4
order to gain this support by the business community, discussions must
begin in the near future if this tool is to be pursued.
staff is also recommending at this time the action on increasing
permit fees should be an annual increase unless otherwise directed by
the city Council. staff suggests that this review be completed at the
same time as the normal budgeting process.
o What are the negatives of increasing the permit fees system wide?
staff had sent letters requesting comments from or the presence of
representati ves from the area business groups at the last parking
meeting. Not one business appeared to voice concerns about increasing
permit fees.
Quite often the City receives complaints about the high cost of
permits, particularly for those employees who are part-time. staff
anticipates that these concerns will be voiced if an increase lS
adopted. Most employees and customers view Hopkins as a typical
suburb which should not have parking fees. An increase in fees could
create hostility based on this perception.
.
o How many yellow permits are sold?
As of December 31, 94 yellow permits had been issued. Of this total,
First Bank had approximately 83% of all permits sold. In the past, I
Taits Super Valu accounted for about half of the permits sold.
However, due to the cost relationship for permits of part-time '
employees, Taits has not purchased permits for over one year.
Over the past year, First Bank has undergone some internal
restructuring. wi th this restructuring the bank will no longer be
purchasing permits for its employees. First Bank has met with staff
and fully supports a reduction of permits for the purpose of keeping
its employees within the permit system. Attached is a letter from
First Bank with their comments.
o Why should Lot #900 be different from the remainder of the permit
system?
staff believes there are several good reasons for excluding this lot
from the permit parking system. They are as follows:
. Lack of long term customer parking.
4It . Lot #900 is not really within the downtown CBD and its change
would not negatively impact the remainder of the system.
. It may entice those employees who are unwilling to purchase a
permit to quit playing car tag and park in this remote lot.
.-- -----
e CR: 91-31
Page 5
. The lot does not provide any front door customer parking for
any businesses, so the all day parking does not impact anyone.
. It may reduce the number of employees currently parking in the
residential areas surrounding downtown.
0 What impacts do these fee changes have on revenues?
The Parking Committee is proposing that the 1991 permit fees be
increased 6% and rounded to the nearest 1/2 dollar. The total amount
of revenue raised by this increase would be approximately $900. As
you can see, this increase has only a nominal impact on the revenues
necessary to support the system.
The change to Lot #900 could have a variety of revenue impacts. If
Lot #900 were completely sold out, approximately $3500 in revenue
would be generated. This would be 50% of the current sales for yellow
permits.
However, it is safe to assume that individuals will still purchase
permits for lot #700. If this change was made, the city would have
the ability to sell 53 permits for this lot. Were this lot to totally
. sell out, revenues would be approximately $3800. In effect if both
lots were to be sold out the City would actually generate additional
revenue.
The purpose of the parking system was to provide a system which would
provide parking for customers of the CBD businesses. While the above
figures can be pointed at, it would be safe to say that it is highly
unlikely that these lots will both be sold out. The questions which
should be answered is; if prices can be reduced to get better
compliance by the business community, is it worth any decline in sales
revenues?
0 When would this increase take affect?
staff is suggesting that this increase take affect the day following
action by the city Council. This would be February 6, 1991.
The impact of this increase would only affect those who wait until
after this date to purchase their permits. The City began selling
these permits on December 17th of last year.
0 Why the addition of permit spaces on 10th Avenue?
. The system has been established to meet the parking needs of the
customers who frequent the local businesses. The study completed by
Benshoof indirectly included the type of business when determining
parking demand. The demand ratios which were developed within this
study were based on the shared usage of parking by the different types
of land uses.
----.--
. CR: 91-31
Page 6
While there has been a number of business turnovers within the
downtown, the number has not increased significantly enough (in staffs
opinion) to justify a change in the system itself. The current system
provides permit parking areas for both business owners and/or
customers to park for longer than 3 hours. Permits can also be
purchased by employers for usage by employees and business customers.
The system also allows for permits to be shared by those who can not
justify this change. As this is the only lot wi thin the system that
does not currently provide permit parking, the Parking Committee saw
justification in providing it.
0 Why had staff not supported this change?
Staff did not support the change for the following reasons:
1. area was removed from system in 1988.
2. Same problems may occur which led to its removal
0 What comments did the parking Committee have on these items?
.
The Committee was strongly ln favor of the proposed changed. While
the impacts of these changes have to be weighed very closely, the
committee indicated that the potential positives were worth
undertaking the changes.
Alternatives
Based on the above information, the city Council has the following
alternatives to consider:
1. Move that the changes to the parking system proposed by the
Parking Committee be adopted.
2. Move that some form of the change to the parking system
proposed by the Parking committee be adopted.
3 . Move that this item be continued for further information from
staff.
4. Deny this request.
.
Exhibit A
PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
JANUARY $4,243.00 $4,886.00 $11,237.00 $18,481.00 $21,037.00
FEBRUARY $1,527.00 $945.00 $5.945.00 $4,180.00 $2,614.00
.. '.'........ ...
" ..
MARCH $1,521.00 $2,015.00 $8,331.00 $5,684.00"~,l;l:l~9;00:
APRIL $1,276.00 $1,001.00 $5,758.00 $4,532.00 $3,374.00
MAY $1,439.00 $945.00 $4,374.00 $4,500.00 $4,117.00
JUNE $1,736.00 $1,833.00 $8,423.00 $4,238.00 4,379.00
JULY $1,210.00 $1,427.00 $5,800.00 $3,324.00 3,994.00
AUGUST $1,646.00 $1,077.00 $3,857.00 $3,380.00 3,244.00
SEPTEMBER $1,584.00 $3,524.00 $8,935.00 $5,669.00 3,950.00
OCTOBER $1,363.25 $1,445.00 $6,391.00 $3,501.00 2,768.00
NOVEMBER $1,177.00 $933.00 $5,222.00 $3,178.00 3,494.00
DECEMBER $945.00 $44.00 $4,201.00 $1,757.00
TOTAL
REVENUES $54,866.00
'-ROM SALES $19,667.25 $20,075.00 $78,474.00 $62,424.00 $.33..-04.:1..0.0.
REVENUE
. BUDGET $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $55,000.00 $72,000.00 $72,000.00
. ~ 1986 & 1987 DO NOT INCLUDE FINES IN PARKING FUND
Parking System Revenue Expenditures
Actual and Budgeted
en
70
ro
51]
~
"'8
g 40
:J
o
.c;
t-
3)
2fJ
4IIt 10
o
1955 1967 1988 1989 1990
[Z2] ACT REv IS::SJ u::r B UO tz22:3 ACT EXP
..-
.
i
'..
0 I'" II AREAS IN QUESTION
. l "~,-,,,,
e 0
t .....
,'- 1,'
L i
-j.
~ l~_-_ ~,'! I
1 ~-
I -" I
-E .
--,
-
0 _ #900 ~J
- -1
- -,I
",0 '"
J "1
- .
-. -
- "~.
0 -
-
~ ,
- ) -- ...
) ~ ~
ST NO
{\ r-,' '\
~ r:. r-
, - ' , C>
L J ' l
u~~ 0 [
0 Z
2:
0 [-
'-
. [
I
- .~-- ~-_. - --
-- (
, lC
I
0
.~.
~ ~~ \- ""
>
... - ~ -c:
;> -~ ~
0(
-
- -. -- ,-
. -.- ..
I
-.*#~ -
] -
'-l T -
...
-
.... ,
- L--
___- _---r - .c
--
= .- -
J = [ ~ (II
.. j
-'
/1:
- I
~. "
I
,
MAtNSTREET f
rr-=- -,ri-l r '11 m~
~ ) 1 -=
----rl
"-
. 0 I "'''-
, I
o ~'"
t. t j
I .~ -t =: '
~ I ~o-r - ~~
JL_J; ro_ ~l~r J ~~iLJI ~J lLJI. I) ~I IllL
::. ~ I 1.--' r--"-- ---) ~ ~.~ -f;;i' 'r- ( ','-- 0 l ~ ~ 0
f3=" l II l~ >~ 0 IE 0 ~ ~ I;
: : ~ ~J( J-.L J ~ - ~c6 =:: C'J ; LE 0; 0 . 0 II'
, -' D ' 0 0 0 0 "
r . -v'-oJ ( I
.J I _ - - f IIZ.S'f ! 41 J ___ 0
I' t[]tIJ" ~ [[8 [to]
" . (I
; .~. JJ ; 1 _I ...... ~.. ,=
~.l~ ~.~ [W1;1Ii,nl),EWmJ, 1'1
-_Ji lL.~.~l~f:.l .c - li ~~ '~rl] f ) J [
~ !! !.' J 1 i flLj l 0 ) ft ~ 1 0 I 0
I :',' -_. --- r~ '13 ~ 0 0
~ 11. ~ ' 0 0
Jr~ , : i .! 0
L~ ' : ,; I · ~ J I l I ~ 0 __-
~ -~, I. --~. . --iJ, -= .{l~D;] '"'. ___ ~ r ' . C
~1! I : (I.' ~ - ~ 1 i~1 J ......... . /:.:::~,"'u"'/1~ ::.///
r +- ~~--~ I ,I ___-L11 ',,\\~ _--------
I '( i ) I /~.,'.'.\I\\\__ \-~ ___-~
.":( I .-J : f,i '~~'~'::'.:" :' " '::,,\:,":)}.'\ \,,______----------
, ~ , \" '\\,""
- ! ~ ),-,\'\' :'",' '
- ~ ,~.~--=---=-. =-..- - -~ ---- '"--
. First Bank
Hopkins
16 Ninth Avenue North p, Gregory Peterka
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 President
December 17, 1990
Brian Fritsinger
City of Hopkins
RE: December Parking Committee meeting
Dear Brian:
In anticipation of the upcoming committee meeting on December
19, I thought you would be interested in the results of a
survey we recently completed with our employees. Following
are the questions asked and the employee responses:
. Questions Responses
l. Would you buy a parking permit
14 Yes 20 No
at a cost of $11 - $12?
2. Would you buy a parking permit 23 Yes 7 No
for lot 900 at a cost of $5 - $6?
3. What major concerns do you have Insufficient lighting in
for parking? lot 900.
Brian, we have tried to support the policies and interests of
the Hopkins Parking Committee. If the cost of parking in lot
900 was reduced to $5 - $6, I am sure you would have 100%
support. It is also important to note our employees' concern
for lighting in lot 900; especially this time of year.
Let me know if you or any of the committee members have any
questions. Thank you.
P. Gregory Peterka
President
. PGP:lje
Member First Bank System