PARKING BOARD
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER 4:31 p.m. by Mr. Spatafore
ROLL CALL Mr. Spatafore, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Caggiano and Mr. Doggett and Parking Director James Hacker. Mr. Bouchard arrived later in the meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Caggiano made a motion to approve the minutes of June 7, 2010. Mr. Doggett seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Caggiano stated that he noticed that Horace Mann lab school has parking meters and asked if the city can enforce them.
Mr. Hacker replied in the negative, noting that they are not on city property.
- Parking Study Update – Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager
Tom Daniel of the City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development stated that he and Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Hacker are members of the working group. Two years ago, the Urban Land Institute came to Salem for a pro bono technical workshop. They looked at the Church Street lot, which is owned by the Salem Redevelopment Authority, and they were interested in looking at what was feasible for that lot, with one option being more parking on the lot. ULI spent the day looking at it with various professionals and disciplines and their conclusion was that the Museum Place Mall garage has capacity existing today, so it would not make sense to build another garage across the street. They acknowledged it was based on a one-day intensive look and recommended that the
city look at parking comprehensively. As a result, the SRA and the City co-funded a parking study. Nelson/Nygaard was hired to conduct the study along with 14 member working group to help with the year long process.
Mr. Bouchard joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Daniel stated that there were public workshops throughout the process to engage input, identify concerns and recommend solutions. All parking spaces, public and private, were inventoried, as well as a look at usage. A survey was also issued to gain additional data from the community. The report was finalized in June, has gone to City Council and was referred to committee, which meets next week. Mr. Daniel stated that there are a whole host of recommendations and details in the report and that, rather than adopting the ambitious plan, recommending to the City a policy outcome or objective from the plan. One of the key things in the plan is on-street availability which is a frustration for users and business owners. On-street availability is tough in certain parts of
town and easy in others. Industry standard is to have 1 out of 8 spaces open, which gives people the sense of availability.
Mr. Daniel narrated a PowerPoint presentation. He noted that some cars were tracked during the day (i.e. operators that moved their cars nearby to stay within the 2 hour time limits). A key finding is that at peak workday time, there is still parking. Even at 10am (time of highest utilization) there are still 751 spaces available. He noted that it is not a supply problem, but a problem of availability. There are also over 940 available spaces throughout day in private locations. There are 13 types of regulations for public parking, which is confusing and frustrating for people. Incremental decisions were made over time that may no longer relate to the business(es) for which they were instituted. Pricing is unbalanced. He stated that the City could
build more parking garages, but it will not change the on-street dynamic by itself. The study suggestion is to incentivize people to get off the street and into the garage or a lot. It was noted that parking passes may not make sense to a part time worker and that the study recommends different types of monthly passes focused on employees, priced to incentivize employees not to park in front of businesses, but in a more remote location, which is currently vacant. He stated that we can’t look at just one piece of it – we have to look at it as a whole, because if you change something on one street it has an effect on another. The consultant recommends formerly designating some areas for employees. Consultant and the working group suggests looking at a policy framework that looks at 3 broad types of parking areas: P = the core downtown where we are looking to prioritize for the visitor, M= where it is monthly parkers coming here to ride
the train or those coming to work downtown and the R = the residential areas – and to prioritize these types of parking use in those areas. 1 out of 8 on-street spaces per block face is the goal. To get there is looking at relative market pricing and have demand responsive pricing, as well as extending time limits. The other recommendation is to get employees out of parking in front, by creating new options, such as having a employee parking area (i.e. formalizing a number of spaces at Riley Plaza) with a monthly permit. This creates an option for people who are plugging meters, is less expensive for them and avoids their getting a ticket and frees up a spot in front of the business. In order to improve the parking experience for customers, employees and residents, the Working Group recommends that the City Council adopt a policy objective for the system to operate at 15 % on-street availability per block face. Tuesday is City Council
committee meeting.
Mr. Spatafore asked would people walk even if they paid extra.
Mr. Daniel stated that at the first workshop, people expressed a willingness to park once, walk and pay a little more and know they are not going to get a ticket. He stated that the consultants also suggested going from 2 to 4 hour time limits.
Mr. Walsh asked if employees are willing to park in the garage if the city raises rates at the meter.
Mr. Daniel replied that pricing is an individual decision, noting that some will walk in order to pay less, while others won’t and would rather pay for the convenience. The idea is to expand the options available. The study suggests looking at monthly and hourly pass pricing.
Mr. Walsh asked if the consultants talked to employees.
Mr. Daniel stated that the survey addressed people’s sentiments around that and noted that on page 9, last pie chart, ease and location were determined more important than price.
Mr. Caggiano stated the he and Mr. Bouchard sat in the working group for past year and noted that the one thing that struck him is that it seems like a continuation of what the parking board has been looking toward for the last 5 years. He stated that it adds another set of eyes and sort of a bird’s eye view. They are looking to target a goal for the city council and create a common goal.
Mr. Daniel stated that there would need to be re-surveying done periodically to see what is or what isn’t working.
Mr. Hacker stated that he attended most of meetings and felt that in a perfect world, this is what the consultant is recommending. He believed the Board is being asked for a vote of confidence to go forward with the City Council.
Mr. Doggett stated that he was impressed with the amount of information. He noted that people always want to park where it is closest to where they want to be. He stated that he thought the study was quite well done.
Nate Gravel, 24 Norman Street, asked about the methodology of the study.
Mr. Daniel stated that it was done on a Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, during the morning, noon and evening. The Tuesday was in august, the Thursday was in early October and the Saturday was in mid-October.
Mr. Gravel asked if the study took into account the building of the courthouse and the 6 new restaurants.
Mr. Daniel replied that the impact of the courthouse on parking is negligible, because there will not be a dramatic increase in new employees. The proposed MBTA garage construction will address those. He noted that people riding the T are not those that are feeding meters, so it is a different dynamic.
Mr. Caggianno stated that on 8/7/10, he found parking very quickly, but went that he went to 5 or 6 restaurants that he couldn’t get in to, concluding that the downtown activity is amazing.
Mr. Caggianno made a motion that Salem Parking Board recommend to the City Council that they adopt the recommendations of the parking study working group to adopt the policy objective for the parking system to operate at 15% on-street availability per block face. Mr. Bouchard seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Electric Charging Outlets
Mr. Spatafore stated that Councillor O’Keefe wanted the Parking Board to review a Wall Street Journal article on the merits of cities establishing public charging stations and space for electric motor vehicles at public parking garages and to consider the merits of this initiative of Nissan Motor Company to prepare for electric car use and to advise the City Council of the findings.
Mr. Caggiano stated that he felt it was too early for city to adopt because the technology is still evolving. He felt it was best to take a wait and see approach.
Mr. Doggett was in agreement and felt the city should wait until it gets mature enough to know which system and which plug becomes the standard, noting that we don’t want to be ahead of that curve. He questioned who would pay for the electricity.
Mr. Spatafore stated that he felt it would be a pretty high cost to just install.
Mr. Doggett stated that in Alaska, parking meters have plugs provided free. However, he did not see electric cars in the next decade being any more than commuter cars.
Mr. Hacker stated that car companies are encouraging everyone to invest so they can sell more cars. He stated that it will probably need to be done within next decade, but he did not see any sense of installing in the garage now if there is no real need. He noted that it would be a major refit for the Museum Place Garage. He added that during the last couple of rain storms, the city had to spend a lot of money on electrical wiring that shorted out. He stated that there are an awful lot of unknowns and that car companies are not offering technical or financial assistance to cities.
Mr. Caggiano stated that the federal government is giving car companies large grants to invest into this technology.
Mr. Doggett made a motion to respond that the Board welcomes this input from the Council, that the Board has reviewed article and will continue to the situation as it develops and as it matures we will come back to the council with appropriate recommendation. Mr. Caggiano seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- 24 Norman Street Condo Association
Mr. Gravel stated he was present on behalf of condo association... elected trustee.. . He acknowledged that, in the past, there has been a refusal by the condo association to pay the City of Salem and that legal proceedings were initiated. They are now requesting a reduction of the fees, noting that the current fees represent 25% of the property’s operating costs. The property was originally in the b3 zone and the conversion into condos was permitted if we paid a fee set by Parking Board to park in Riley Plaza. The fee has been $500 per unit, which at 39 units is $19,500 per year. This is apparently the same cost as parking in the garage, but the are not garage customers. He agreed Riley Plaza is convenient parking, but noted that 25% of Riley Plaza
is not time restricted and that, at the time of the permit, the lot was 100% restricted. The benefit only comes if there is an enforcement or infringement. He stated that he felt the city could do better with the pricing, since they are buying in bulk.
Mr. Hacker stated that the property is the former telephone office building next door to the White Hen Pantry. The developer came before the Board of Appeal. Because of the physical way that the telephone company built buildings so solid, the 39 condo units are small, so the variance was granted where they were charged to park in Riley Plaza. The variance was granted based upon maintaining 39 spaces plus 2 or 3 for unloading in the driveway, with a notice of intent for Mr. Robert Bramble to make the necessary arrangements on behalf of the condominium unit owners association to purchase on an annual basis yearly stickers for parking Riley Plaza and the amount required to purchase said parking stickers shall always be included in the annual budget of the owners association. Mr.
Hacker believed it was incorporated in deed. The condo owners currently use a hang tag. He questioned where they would park because the hang tag gives them the privilege to park in Riley Plaza.
Mr. Caggiano asked if it is that some people don’t have a car.
Mr. Gravel replied that some do not, but they still have to pay. He stated that approximately half do not have car.
Mr. Hacker stated that the city knew at the time that some would have multiple cars and that some would not have a car.
Mr. Caggiano stated that the conversion was done in 1984 and that last spring Salem saw zip cars move in. He suggested that maybe things have changed and that it was more likely that everyone had a vehicle back then.
Mr. Hacker stated that the Ordinance says that 1 ½ parking spaces per dwelling unit must be maintained. In this case, they reduced it to one space. Generally, the spaces are supposed to be on premises, but can also be a specific number of feet from the premises.
Mr. Caggiano asked if the condos converted in the old Bleachers building were required to pay for parking.
Mr. Hacker stated that he believe so and noted that Derby Lofts also pays.
Mr. Walsh asked, if unit has 2 cars, do they pay $500 or $1000.
Mr. Hacker stated that the $500 fee is for one vehicle. He noted that the Essex Condos buy 40 placards per year and the placards are owned and distributed by the condo association. The fee is per unit, not per car.
Mr. Doggett stated that it is a zoning ordinance issue and asked who signed the approval.
Mr. Hacker stated that the ZBA signed . He added that the Parking Board would set the rate.
Mr. Caggiano stated that he thought the rate sounded reasonable based on the fee set by the City Council for the parking garage..
Mr. Hacker suggested amending the approval so that they could be allowed to park either in the garage or at Riley Plaza.
Mr. Gravel stated that the cost is a large part of the condo fee, when availability is a crapshoot.
Mr. Caggiano stated that he finds that the 30 minute parking area in Riley Plaza always has available spaces.
Ms. Guy suggested that the City Solicitor look at the ZBA approval, as it appears it may be for registered cars, not all 39 units. The number of registered cars could probably be verified by through the Assessor’s Office for vehicle excise tax.
Mr. Doggett stated that he would like to see a request in writing from the condo association for the board to consider.
Mr. Hacker suggested Mr. Gravel draft something and stated the he will look further into the approval.
Mr. Gravel stated that he will draft a letter.
Mr. Hacker stated that there was major damage in the Museum Place Garage from the storm due to water shooting up from the drains from the first floor, along with water coming down from roof. The water broke 4 of the 4-inch black pipe drains in 4 of the businesses. The city expended $5500 with plumber. The water shorted out lights on roof for a cost of almost $3000 and section 2b was $960 to repair. The issues with the elevator cost almost $700, which also blew out alarms and electrical for about $2600. All in all with an operating maintenance budget of about $31,000, they went through $15,077.47 from the first rain storm. He stated that he would like a motion to petition the City Council to reimburse the line item for $15,077.47 from the Capital Improvement fund.
Mr. Hacker noted that insurance covered the damage to the businesses.
Mr. Caggiano made a motion to petition the City Council for reimbursement of $15,077.47. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Hacker stated that he received a copy of a letter sent to the Mayor from Anita Armell regarding parking on Hawthorne Blvd. and who inquired about purchasing an individual parking spot from the city. She also suggested that parking meters be in effect seven days, including Sundays, to increase city revenue. She also suggested opening up Essex Street to one-way traffic from Washington to Hawthorne Blvd. Mr. Hacker noted that one side of Hawthorne Blvd. is metered, and part is resident sticker parking and part is unregulated. He stated that he has explained to Ms. Armell that changes to Hawthorne Blvd. would require an ordinance change and that there is nothing the Parking Board can do to help her.
Mr. Spatafore noted that all board members should have gotten the changes to the open meeting law.
Mr. Hacker provided the revenue spreadsheets for Fiscal Years 04 thru 10. He stated that the parking lots and meter revenue are up about 35%. The office revenue is up about 1%, noting that they have 17 fewer annual and 20 fewer monthly passes than a year ago. The South Harbor garage is up 35%. The Museum Place parking garage is up about 14.7%. He stated that in total, they are up approximately $100,000 from the year before, likely due to being open later, the good weather and the new meter rates. He noted that it is an investment of about $35,000 in payroll.
Mr. Hacker noted that the Visitor Center is up about 17% in people coming in.
There was no unfinished business.
Mr. Caggiano made a motion to have no meetings in October or December and for the next meeting to be November 22, 2010, unless something urgent comes up and the board needs to meet. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mr. Caggiano made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Doggett seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:13pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Secretary
| 
