PARKING BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER By Mr. Caggiano
ROLL CALL Mr. Caggiano, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Doggett. Mr. Caggiano chaired the meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Doggett made a motion to approve the minutes of February 7, 2011. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Present was Tom Daniel of the Department of Planning and Community Development to provide an update on the proposed changes to the city’s parking system.
Mr. Daniel stated that the working group subgroup has been meeting since September to fine tune recommendations and he has been meeting with various organizations, such as Salem Partnership, Salem Chamber of Commerce and Salem Rotary. He will also be meeting with the Neighborhood Improvement Advisory Committee. The study was done to look comprehensively at the parking system. He noted that comments received are conflicting and there are different perspectives, such as “I can never find parking” versus “There is always space available” or “ I will walk a mile if I can save money” versus “I want to park out front”. The consultant, Nelson/Nygaard, did an inventory of every parking space in the city and completed a survey of 650
respondents. Convenience and location matter most to people. 76% said ease of finding spot matters most and only 10% said price. The consultant said that this is consistent. Even at the crunch time of 10:00am on Thursday, there are 751 public spaces available out of 3,000 public spaces – however, they may not be where you want them. There are also 940 private spaces available at 8:00am. There are 13 different types of parking, such as 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hour, resident only. Hawthorne Boulevard has seven different types of parking on it. It was found we are not using pricing to incentivize the available spaces. We cannot focus on just one thing, we need to focus on the parking system as a whole. We are submitting to Council for March 10th, which will be referred to committee and taken up some time in March. There are a few recommendations that are housekeeping matters that can be undertaken easily.
There are additional recommendations that get to the heart of the change that the report is calling for, such as relative pricing – areas in high demand are priced higher than areas in low demand. The courthouse area would be priced higher than the South River area. On-street would be priced higher than off-street. They are recommending that the Courthouse area (Federal, Lynde & Church) be $1.50 per on-street space, the South River area be $.50 and the remainder be $.75. Off-street spaces would also be priced according to demand. They are also talking about revising the monthly pass program. Currently, for $60 a month, you get a pass that works at either garage. We are proposing a monthly pass for the Church Street lot for $75. Also proposed is for a $25 monthly pass at a portion of Riley Plaza west and east, as well as some areas that are currently unregulated on street spaces, helpful for part time workers. As
he talked to people, he found people very excited about the $25 option. The Museum Place garage would increase from $60 to $65 and South Harbor would drop in price. We talked about setting a limit to the number of passes in each garage or lot so that no more than 75% would be for those with passes (with condo development passes removed from the supply calculations). We are looking at four hour time limits with the exception being around the post office and the Church Street lot, where the kiosks would still be for unlimited time. We also looked at revising the enforcement hours. One of the issues for businesses is condo development residents using the parking supply that become unavailable to customers. People commented that $15 was not a large enough fine to deter, but that $30 seems to be the point where people will think about what they are doing. They are recommending having the first ticket be free and to provide parking availability
information. It would be per registration, where the first violation per calendar year would be free.
Mr. Doggett questioned the rationale that by limiting the number of passes issued, that it will change the availability of parking spaces.
Mr. Caggiano stated that the South Harbor garage is pretty much empty and we are trying to free up the on-street and send them to the South Harbor garage.
Mr. Daniel stated that he is not saying there will be more availability, but we are setting a threshold number of passes that will be sold.
Mr. Doggett questioned if someone wants to purchase a pass for South Harbor and is told there are no more even though there are available parking spaces and that the person would then have to pay full price for the same space.
Mr. Daniel stated that they are trying to have clarity and something to work from. 75% is the consultant recommendation, but it could be 80%. Once something is established, we can re-evaluate it.
Mr. Daniel stated that the next recommendations are with regard to supply opportunities. Certain areas on Federal, Lynde and Crombie are currently residential only permit zones 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. We are recommending that stay residential only Monday thru Friday evenings and on weekends, but during the week day 8-5, those 53 spaces be added back to the supply downtown so anyone can park there. The 60 residential permit holders would get a new pass which would allow them to park anywhere during the week day. They are also recommending that the first level of the Museum Place garage not be available until 10:00am, so workers park on the upper floors and customers get the more convenient parking. City staff who get a parking pass will be asked to park up
higher. It is recommended to reconfigure Riley Plaza to add about 60 new space and we could also add 12 new spaces on Margin Street by repainting. Throughout the study we said that whatever changes are done must be at least revenue neutral. Today shows an increase of about $100,000. If there is net revenue increase, it is suggested that it be captured and go back into the downtown, such as reconfiguring Riley Plaza. We are also looking at a communications and information plan. It is currently hard to find on the city website. If the Council adopts the recommendations, there would need to be a campaign around that. It is also suggested to call the Museum Place Mall garage, the Central Garage and possibly the South River Garage be the Waterfront Garage. We are also looking at a governance model. Right now the Board has a role in the process by making recommendations about parking, as does the City Council. One of the
reasons that there are 13 different types of parking is that there were incremental decisions made overall several decades, which made sense at the time, but there has never been anyone minding the whole. It is recommended that a Parking Commission be established. The City Council would continue to set the broad policy objective. The existing Parking Board would go away and evolve into a new the Parking Commission that would be minding the whole and be the expert entity making those decisions.
Mr. Doggett stated that it was a great idea, but doubted that the City Council would give up any authority.
Mr. Daniel stated that he knew there are some councillors that would be happy to delegate it, but that there are others that would not.
Mr. Caggiano asked if this is something that Mr. Daniel feels is something that the City Council will adopt or is it an outline that still needs to be fine tuned or is this the final.
Mr. Daniel stated that this is the final recommendation.
Mr. Caggiano asked if Mr. Daniel thought the City Council would adopt and implement all of these changes within 6 months to a year.
Mr. Daniel stated that the governance model is the one he has the least sense about. He stated that the housekeeping is a no-brainer. The relative pricing, the monthly permits zones and other tweaks make a lot of sense and the feedback has been very positive from all the groups. People feel it is reasonable and rational to look at this holistically and comprehensives, so he believes the City Council would see that as well, and be supportive of it. The governance model piece of it can be separated out.
Mr. Caggiano agreed that it would not be a deal breaker. He agreed that something needs to be done and that there needs to be a pricing structure implemented that encourages people to park where the supply is and the convenience factor in on-street should increase in price. His concern was from a revenue standpoint and felt it should be looked at in more detail. He questioned if the Derby Lofts people who are now paying $60 per month would be effected.
Mr. Daniel stated that some prices will go down and others will go up and the Derby Lofts fee would go down to $25 per month because their agreement is to by the passes at whatever rate the passes may be. He distributed and reviewed a report on proposed permit, hourly fee and enforcement revenues versus existing revenues for FY10. He noted that the projections are very conservative. They are projecting an increase of $131,000 in permit revenue, an increase in about $1 million in on-street and meter/lot revenue and a decrease in enforcement of about $750,000. So the net increase is approximately $424,800.
Mr. Doggett asked if utilization transactions will remain the same or if they are forecasting an increase.
Mr. Daniel replied in the negative, noted that it will be moving where the transactions occur and the pricing. He stated that they are also looking at a technology shift, so we will be able to convert systems and fund pay stations and smart meter heads with the funds. The estimated annual operating expenses, including the debt service, the maintenance service contracts, the credit card transaction fees and the communications service contract fees for all this technology is approximately $318,000 per year. The net change is about $107,000. The working group recommends making the shift in technology at the same time to make it more convenient, for ease of auditing and management and for customer service. Mr. Daniel stated that they are also recommending the Bridge
Street lot increase to $4 an hour to match the MBTA lot and that kicks in about $68,000 of revenue that is not showing in the report.
Mr. Caggiano asked if it will eliminate the visitor pass, noting that this board has found that system flawed and abused.
Mr. Daniel stated that there would be an impact and that from 8 to 5 during weekdays, anyone will be able to park there. The 60 residential permit owners would be able to park anywhere during the weekday.
Mr. Doggett stated that it may be another hot button for residents in true residential areas, he sensed that their lock on residential parking in front of their house is diminished.
Mr. Daniel stated that one of the things throughout the study was to preserve certain areas of residential.
Mr. Caggiano stated that he did not think it would be fair to the working study group, to Mr. Daniel or to the City Council, if this board recommended changes.
Mr. Daniel stated that he was looking for a motion supporting the recommendations.
Mr. Walsh made a motion to support the efforts of Parking Study Working Group.
Mr. Doggett stated that he did not have sufficient information to support the specifics of this proposal. He stated that he would be in favor of supporting it to go to the City Council for their review.
Mr. Caggiano recommended that the motion be to support the efforts of the Parking Study Working group to present to the City Council.
Mr. Doggett stated that certainly endorse what they have done, but did not want to say that they agree with the pricing structure.
Mr. Doggett seconded the motion.
Mr. Caggiano stated that he sees the difficulty in supporting each individual, minute item.
Mr. Doggett agreed that the existing system is flawed and it certainly needs to be reviewed and corrected.
Mr. Caggiano stated that the City Council would most likely come back to this board when they zero in on specific regulations and then the Board could revisit it at that point. He stated that the idea is to simplify and change the diverse regulations currently in place.
Mr. Daniel suggested reaffirming the operating objective of one out of eight and support the use of relative pricing to achieve it.
Mr. Caggiano suggested that the motion be amended to state that what the Board supports is the 1 in 8, 15% availability on street. He asked if the Board supports the idea of relative pricing – increasing prices in zones that are in higher demand and shorter supply and decreasing prices in zones, and sections and garages in high supply and relatively low demand.
Mr. Doggett and Mr. Walsh agreed that they support it in theory.
Mr. Caggiano stated that you can’t force someone to park where they don’t want to park, if somebody is willing to pay the price or the fine. He stated what we are trying to accomplish is not to tell someone where to park, but to make it so they are more willing to park there long-term versus short term and to increase the business owner’s ability to attract customers and for the residents and visitors to come downtown and shop. He felt the Board did support that.
Mr. Doggett stated that he likes the plan in context. He stated he did not want it to appear that the board is endorsing very specific portions of it.
Mr. Daniel suggested saying supporting relative pricing.
Mr. Caggiano added the operational objective and the simplification of the zoning.
Mr. Caggiano summarized that the motion could be to support the presentation as presented, specifically to achieve the operating objective of 15% availability, to implement a relative pricing structure and to implement a simplification of the parking system. He stated that the consultant is responding to studies, working groups, forums and surveys. People are saying they are in favor of this.
Mr. Daniel stated that there has been a lot of public input.
Mr. Walsh so amended his motion. Mr. Doggett seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There were no reports from board members.
- INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
There was no information and correspondence.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
There was no new business.
The next meeting will be April 4, 2011.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mr. Doggett made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Secretary
| 
