Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - January 5, 2016 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2016 A. Roll Call by City Clerk An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, January 5, 2016, commencing at 7:03 a.m. Present: Council Member Johnson, Council Member Mounce, Council Member Nakanishi, Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, and Mayor Chandler Absent: None Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Ferraiolo B. Topic(s) B-1 Receive Information on Transit Parking Structure and Downtown Parking (PW) Transportation Manager Paula Fernandez provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding Downtown Transit Parking Structure utilization. Specific topics of discussion included overview, parking survey, community feedback, structure improvements, and alternatives/ recommendations. In response to Council Member Johnson, Ms. Fernandez stated the ten reserved parking spots set aside for the GrapeLine buses in the parking structure are only utilized in the evening, i.e. 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., and are available during the day. The four primary spaces on the first floor, which were used for Fire Administration parking, will be changed since the Department moved to the City Hall annex. Additionally there is one electric charging station and eight handicapped spaces. In response to Council Member Mounce, Ms. Fernandez stated the hired security officers attempt to vacate homeless individuals if they take up residence in the parking structure; however, they will request police assistance if they resist. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Ms. Fernandez stated the security cameras are hooked up at the Police Department and City Hall. Previously, a security officer monitored the cameras from the clock tower at the Transit Station and an additional officer monitored the Transit Station lobby but they no longer do so; instead, the two officers patrol the parking structure to provide a greater presence. In response to Mayor Chandler, Ms. Fernandez stated that, because the parking structure receives federal funding, the City is required to track and submit any incidents on a monthly basis and indicate if a security officer was present. She stated the number of incidents varies from month to month. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne questioned if anyone has been apprehended due to the cameras, to which Ms. Fernandez responded she was uncertain because that data is not available. In response to Council Member Mounce, Ms. Fernandez confirmed the cameras at the parking structure record activity and are used to verify incidents; however, it is difficult to locate the footage if the exact time and location of the incident is unknown. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Ms. Fernandez stated there were roughly 14 incidents at the structure in 2015, not including the month of December, and most involve vandalism, vehicle damage and theft, slashed tires, and fire extinguisher theft. Mayor Pro 1 Tempore Kuehne stated he believed adding more security cameras seems unnecessary as they appear to be ineffective. Council Member Mounce stated she believed a greater presence at the parking structure is more beneficial than cameras because people are more comfortable when they see an officer or Lodi Police Partner on site. In response, Ms. Fernandez stated Alternative 2 adds a second officer for greater coverage to include evening hours and weekends; whereas, Alternative 1 increases the hours to ensure a presence at the structure around the clock. City Manager Schwabauer further explained Alternative 1 would provide security at the structure for 24 hours a day, while Alternative 2 would provide two security officers during high -impact times. In response to Council Member Mounce, Lodi Police Captain Chris Jacobson stated the Partners are currently patrolling the parking structure for violations and offering a police presence, but they do not serve in a security or law enforcement capacity. Council Member Mounce suggested placing an older police car in the structure for the appearance that an officer is present. Captain Jacobson stated more security and police presence is the greater solution. In response to Mayor Chandler, Captain Jacobson stated many of the downtown business owners view the structure as dangerous, but from a police standpoint, few criminal incidents occur at that location other than occasional vandalism, burglary, or difficulties with intoxicated individuals. He expressed support for the cameras and suggested placing one at the entrance and exits of the structure to assist in capturing vehicle license plates to better identify suspects. Council Member Mounce suggested staff look into relocating the current cameras, and Ms. Fernandez suggested upgrading the current cameras would also be a viable option. Council Member Mounce expressed support for a combination of Alternatives 1 and 3 and questioned if the budget allows flexibility to do so, to which Ms. Fernandez stated a recent grant funding opportunity for cameras will likely provide enough funding for both alternatives. Interim Public Works Director Charlie Swimley stated that the recommendation is Alternatives 1 and 3, and only Alternative 2 if needed. He stated another acceptable option would be Alternatives 1 and 3 with a combination of relocating cameras to better focus on license plates as camera quality has improved since the current ones were installed. Council Member Johnson pointed out the main issue is marketing. Fourteen incidents in a year is not many, but public perception in the downtown community is negative. He suggested a letter be sent to downtown businesses about the improvements to the structure, including the increased janitorial service and security cameras. In response, Ms. Fernandez stated she would provide Council with crime statistics for the structure from the past few years. Council Member Mounce further suggested that, once the cameras are installed, the City host a ribbon cutting and welcome ceremony for the new, improved parking structure to further encourage public parking at the site. Council Member Nakanishi expressed support for Alternatives 1 and 3, stating the knowledge of additional security and cameras, coupled with the maintenance and cleaning changes, will help people feel safer. Ms. Fernandez reported the City utilizes UCP to sweep and clean the facility and City maintenance staff to check the structure daily and make necessary improvements. Council Member Mounce suggested the Arts Commission consider the inside of the parking structure for an Art in Public Places project. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne expressed support for Alternative 1, as well as Alternative 2 if there is grant funding. He further suggested the facility be wired to play music and consideration be given to modifying the restroom to require a fee for use. Council Member Johnson stated he understands the reasoning behind not utilizing Partners for parking enforcement, but he stressed there is benefit in having the Partners vehicles drive through the structure to demonstrate an enforcement presence. 2 Mr. Swimley provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding downtown parking utilization. Specific topics of discussion included overview, 2014 parking Shirtsleeve summary, parking survey, community feedback, increased enforcement, and recommendations. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Mr. Swimley stated that, over the last 20 to 25 years, downtown parking lots have experienced heavy usage, which results in cracked pavement, poor curbing, and other damage. The fee of $18 per space per month for "reconstruction only" is what it would cost in permit fees to recapture the cost of reconstructing parking lots to ensure they are safe. In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Swimley stated the 2014 recommended increase in the overtime violation of $45 to $120 was to discourage violators from taking advantage of the one-time, low fine. Many violators leave their vehicles in a parking space for the entire day after receiving a $45 ticket because the fee is minimal and issued once. A higher fine would encourage drivers to move their vehicles. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Mr. Swimley stated it is primarily business owners and their employees utilizing the parking permits. Council Member Johnson questioned the validity of the survey results on increasing the fine for violators as the survey did not specify a dollar amount. He believed that would change the results drastically by increasing the number of those opposed to the recommendation. Mr. Swimley explained the recommendation is to maintain the current fine level of $45 for the first violation and add a second violation at $90 for a total fine amount of $135. Mr. Schwabauer added the recommendation for a second fine of $90 is for a violation at the same spot on the same day; whereas, the current fine of $45 is an all -day violation. Council Member Kuehne believed it would be helpful to know how many tickets are issued each year, to which Deputy City Manager Jordan Ayers estimated that, based on the revenue, tickets were issued for roughly 866 sites during the past year. Mr. Schwabauer stated the revenue collected is driven by the capacity to enforce, and he believed the number of violations were likely 20 times more than the amount collected because of lack of enforcement. In further response, Mr. Schwabauer stated staff hopes the increased fine will encourage violators to avoid fines altogether or reduce fines by moving their vehicles after the first citation, which would eliminate any need to increase parking enforcement efforts. In response to Council Member Mounce, Captain Jacobson stated that, for several months, the Police Department has not had staff to handle parking enforcement and was utilizing Partners, but the physical nature of the job was too difficult. In order to increase coverage, staff is now utilizing two part-time enforcement officers. The second officer started on Monday, and, once trained, he believed enforcement efforts downtown, including the parking structure, will greatly increase. Captain Jacobson stated many violations go uncaptured because of creative attempts to avoid detection. In response to Council Member Johnson, Captain Jacobson stated the former parking enforcement officer patrolled areas beyond downtown because she was on a timed rotation. After marking tires, the officer checked for violations of disabled parking, alley parking, and parking lots, before returning to complete the timed rotation. When there were two officers, they would also assist with collision reports, but the decrease in staff forced a reduction in the patrol area. In further response, Captain Jacobson stated the Partners are proficient at citing violators of disabled parking, but they do not patrol the alleys and other areas. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Captain Jacobson stated disabled drivers who have handicapped placards are permitted to park anywhere as long as they want. He further stated that, to his knowledge, the parking structure has not been inappropriately used as vehicle storage but there have occasionally been vehicles abandoned at the site. Ms. Fernandez added the City conducts regular 72 -hour enforcement at the structure and tags and tows vehicles that park in the facility longer than allowed. 3 In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Mr. Swimley stated the recommendation for permit parking is to increase it from $5 to $18 and to add a second violation at $90, for a total of $135, for overtime parking in the same space on the same day. In further response, he stated permit parking allows for all -day parking, and Council Member Mounce clarified it is for certain areas. Mr. Schwabauer explained the fine structure, as it applies to permit parking, would be assessed on a driver who parked in a permit -parking space without a permit. The overtime fine is assessed on a driver who parks in a spot longer than the permitted time limit. Council Member Nakanishi stated he would prefer the fine structure be $45 for the first violation and $45 for the second violation for a total fine of $90 because the proposed $135 may be too exorbitant for those on a limited income. In response to Mayor Chandler, Mr. Swimley stated the recommended permit fee of $18 is based on the theory of what it would cost to fund parking lot reconstruction over 20 years and the recommended violation fee of $90 was the simple process of doubling the fine for the first violation. Council Member Mounce agreed a message must be sent to correct business owners who abuse the downtown parking, but many of them are struggling and she does not want to overburden them. In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne, Ms. Fernandez stated the current permit parking fee of $5 was reduced around 2001 at the recommendation of a downtown parking committee as a means of encouraging drivers to purchase parking permits. In response to Mr. Swimley, it was the consensus of Council to adjust the fine structure to $45 for the first violation and $45 for second violation for a total fine of $90. In response to Mayor Chandler, Mr. Schwabauer stated the second ticket will reflect an explanation. Further, it was Council consensus to adjust the permit parking fee to $18. Mr. Swimley stated staff will return to Council for approval of the recommended adjustments. Mr. Swimley provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding parking meter information. Specific topics of discussion included history of parking meters, the reasons for removal of the meters, example of parking meters, estimated potential revenue, and sample map of meter locations. Council Member Mounce stated that, if the City moves in the direction of meters, she would prefer to see advanced meters, similar to those in Sacramento, and she would like a physical demonstration of the meter at a meeting so that Council can judge the size and aesthetics. She further stated that, with only 60 percent occupancy of downtown parking, it may be premature to institute meters and suggested starting with charging only on weekends. Mr. Swimley stated further research is necessary on this matter and pointed out the additional revenue could fund additional parking enforcement or Police bicycle patrols. Council Member Nakanishi stated he would like further information on what surrounding cities, such as Tracy and Manteca, do with regard to parking meters. Council Member Mounce requested Livermore be added to that list. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne stated he would like further information on how many meter stations would need to be installed, as well as how many single meters, and he prefers the advanced, high-tech meters. Mr. Swimley estimated approximately 30 meter stations would be needed between Locust Street and Lodi Avenue. Council Member Johnson pointed out the primary concern is the parking problem in the downtown area and the goal is to make downtown more accessible to shoppers and tourists. Mayor Pro Tempore Kuhene stated that, in talking with downtown business owners, they do not want parking meters; however, he believed the big picture is that a free parking structure is being underutilized and meters would generate revenue that could benefit the downtown. 4 Mr. Schwabauer added that business owners may be supportive of meters if they realized the revenue could be dedicated to downtown -related matters. Myrna Wetzel cautioned against high-tech meters, stating many individuals do not own smart phones or utilize credit cards. She further commented on the following: 1) there is free parking available at the shopping centers; 2) she is opposed to speed bumps as they are harmful to vehicles; 3) downtown needs to be more attractive to visitors; and 4) the City needs to communicate with visitors that the parking structure is safe and demonstrate its efforts in making it more secure. C. Comments by Public on Non -Agenda Items None. D. Adjournment No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 a.m. ATTEST: Jennifer M. Ferraiolo City Clerk 5 CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: MEETING DATE: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM B 1 Receive Information on Transit Parking Structure and Downtown Parking Utilization January 5, 2016 (Shirtsleeve Session) Interim Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Receive information on Transit Parking Structure and downtown parking utilization. The Public Works Department has recently conducted surveys to address concerns about the utilization of the Transit Parking Structure and to evaluate the utilization of the City's downtown, on - street and off-street, permit parking areas. Over the past several months, three parking surveys were conducted to evaluate the downtown Transit Parking Structure. An outreach survey was also distributed to gather information as to why the public does or does not park in the structure. During this same period, staff has also collected information on parking utilization in the City's downtown area. This information provides follow up and supplemental information requested by the Council during a 2014 Shirtsleeve presentation regarding the topic of downtown permit parking. At the Shirtsleeve Session, staff will present survey information regarding utilization of various downtown parking areas. In addition, staff will make recommendations for recovering the cost of maintaining City off-street parking areas, encouraging the purchase of parking permits, improving the image of the Transit Parking Structure, and options for discouraging long-term street parking. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. Charles E. Swimley, Jr. Interim Public Works Director Prepared by Paula Fernandez, Transportation Manager/Senior Transportation Engineer CS/PJF/tdb cc: Interim City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director APPROVED:,—�' Stephen Schwabauer, K:\WP\TRANSIT\Downtown Transit Parking Structure /rtsleeve 1 5 16.doc ity Manager 12/29/2015 The City of Lodi Public Works Transportation Division —4•1110 SISISSIXO ..w.ww .ww*w.w. ..w/ / % Downtown Transit Parking Structure Utilization Shirtsleeve January 5, 2016 • ri • Parking Survey • Community Feedback • Structure Improvements • Alternatives/Recommendations r 104, Three surveys in 2015 • 2 weekdays in July Parking Survey 10:30 AM and 4 PM • Saturday in August 12:30 PM and 6 PM • Farmer's Market in July 6:30 PM R A Parking Survey Weekdays Average ➢10:30 AM - 47 of 330 spaces (14%) ➢ 4 PM — 69 of 330 spaces (21%) Saturday Average ➢12:30 PM — 68 of 330 spaces (21%) ➢ 6 PM — 68 of 330 spaces (21%) Farmer's Market Average ➢ 308 of 330 spaces (93%) R rrt Community Feedback • Survey distributed to Chamber of Commerce members via email • Distributed survey information during a Farmer's Market • 104 community members participated Community Feedback 1) What is your primary relationship to Downtown Lodi? 45% - shoppers (including restaurants, wine tasting, movie) or services 30% - business owners/executive 14% - residents 7% - employees 4% - out of town visitor I 104 Community Feedback 2) I most often park in Downtown Lodi during the: 52% - daytime 28% - evenings 20% - other .A 0 atiffT.'" rip) A Community Feedback 3) Where do you most often park in Downtown Lodi? 62% - on -street (any time limit parking) 14% - public parking lots 13% - private lots 6% - permit parking area (parking lot/on-street) 5% - parking structure Community Feedback 4) Do you feel safe parking in Downtown Lodi? 93% - feel safe 7% - do not feel safe 5) Do you feel safe parking in the Downtown Parking Structure? 51% - feel safe 49% - do not feel safe Community Feedback 6) What is needed at the parking structure to encourage you to park there? 56% - more security (police or security officers) 26% - nothing needed/too far to walk 18% - more lighting Structure Improvements Prior to Survey • Installed security cameras in 2013 After Surve Additional steam cleaning and repainted parking striping/replaced bollards Facility maintenance —upgraded lighting (ongoing) Increased janitorial cleaning services in elevators Increased LPD Partners presence during weekday hours Shifted security services presence to Structure 00111 Of 4P ;:47 Alternatives / Recommendations Alt 1* —Additional security hours ($3,900 Mon -Sun 24 hours/day Alt 2 — Additional security officer 7,300 enforcing at same hours as current enforcement Mon -Fri 6PM — 6AM Sat -Sun 24 hours/day Alt 3* —Additional security cameras ($8-$11 K each) *Recommended alternatives The City of Lodi Public Works Shirtsleeve Session Meeting Downtown Parking Utilization January 5, 2016 1 Overview • 2014 Parking Shirtsleeve Summary • Parking Survey • Community Feedback • Recommendations • Parking Meter Information 2 2014 Parking Shirtsleeve Summary • Permit Revenues — Average annual revenue $7,000 (2009-2014) • Violation Revenues — Average annual revenue $39,000 (2009-2014) • Annual Costs (permit parking area) - $30,000 (enforcement, clean up, landscaping, lighting, minor repairs) Excludes Capital Replacement • Construction Maintenance Costs — $4,400/space (119 spaces @ $4,400 = $523,600) 3 2014 Parking Shirtsleeve Summary 2 Alternatives 1) Annual Costs & Reconstruction (Full Cost Recovery) $40/Space/Month 2) Reconstruction Only $18/Space/Month Staff's recommendation: Increase permit cost from $5 to $40 per month Consider increasing overtime violation fine from $45 to $120 per violation 4 2014 Parking Shirtsleeve Summary Council's Feedback: • Some interest to increase fee ($18 per month) • Online permit purchase • Some interest to increase fine for multiple violations 5 SACRAMENTO LOCUST STREET PUBLIC PARKING AFTER 2PM Z Permit Only 3 -Hour Parking Survey On -Street Parking: — 24 Permit Only — 45 Permit/Time Limit 69 Total parking spaces Parking Lots: — 45 Time Limit (90 minutes or 3 hours) — 38 Permit Only — 83 Permit/Time Limit 166 Total parking spaces Two full day surveys: — 9AM, 10:30AM, 11:30AM, 1 PM, 2PM, 3:30PM and 4:30PM — Weekday in July and September 2015 7 Permit Only 90 -Minute 0_ SCHOOL LOT 4 LOT 3 CHURCH OAK STREET STREET LOT 2 - + + LOT 1 //4/ STREET +++ Public Parking Lot Average Usage (Space) Peak Usage (Space) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 49 of 60 (82%) 21of26(81%) 26 of 33 (79%) 41 of 47 (87%) 2:OOPM 11:30AM 11:30AM 10:30AM 58 of 60 (97%) 25 of 26 (96%) 31 of 33 (94%) 46 of 47 (98%) Parking Survey On -Street Permit/Time Limit Parking Survey • Parking space — 69 total • Average utilization — 58% • Peak utilization — 60% to 100% 9 Community Feedback • Survey was distributed to downtown businesses via email and hand delivered • Survey information was also available at a Farmer's Market booth • 79 community members participated 10 Community Feedback 1) What is your relationship to Downtown Lodi 70% -business owners/executive 28% -employees 2% -residents 2) I most often park in Downtown Lodi during the: 96% -daytime 4% -evenings 11 Community Feedback 3) Where do you most often park in Downtown Lodi 36% -private lots 20% -permit parking areas 19% - on -street (any time limit parking) 19% -public parking lots (free or any time limit) 6% -parking structure 12 Community Feedback 4) The City of Lodi is considering changing the downtown parking permit fee from $5 to $18 per month (in parking lots at Church St/Pine St, Church St/Oak St, and Church St/Walnut St; on -street on blocks of Walnut St, Church St and Locust St). Would you agree? 61% - not in favor 14% - in favor 25% - no opinion 13 Community Feedback 5) The City of Lodi is considering increasing the parking fine for violators with multiple violations. Current overtime violation amount is $45.00 for each violation. Would you agree? 56% - not in favor 35% - in favor 9% - no opinion 14 Increased Enforcement • Permit Sales 181 parking permits purchased in last full quarter (increased enforcement from July through September) • Last year, 110 permits sold per quarter 15 Recommendations • Increase parking permit fee from $5 to $18 per month • Increase the overtime parking fine for multiple violations during same offense to $90: 1st violation - $45 2nd violation - $90 ($135 total) 16 Parking Meter Information • Fall 1947 —Installed parking meters and established parking meter area • Fall 1981 —Removed parking meters 17 Parking Meter Information Why City removed Parking Meters? — Requested by Central Lodi Improvement Committee to assist in getting participation in forming the Downtown Assessment District — Meters were in poor condition — Meters were worn out and difficult to maintain — Numerous citizen complaints — Net monthly meter revenue was declining 18 Parking Meter Information City of Stockton Traditional Coin Meter Meter with Park Mobile App • Allow credit card payment • Enforcement can track the parked vehicles by mobile app • No additional cost for the meter conversation Parking Meter Information City of Sacramento Pay & Display Meter Stations • $8,500 per station plus installation Single Space Meter • $600 per meter plus installation Parking Meter Information Citv of Davis Multi -Space Off -Street Parking Kiosks • $11,300 per kiosk plus installation 21 Parking Meter Information Revenue Estimate On -Street Parking (time -limit parking only) ■ School St (from Locust St to Lodi Ave) ■ Elm St, Pine St, Oak St and Walnut St (from Church St to Sacramento St) ■ Total spaces: 250 90 -min and 43 30 -min ■ Assume 60% occupancy ■ Monday through Friday 9am - 5pm ■ $0.50 per half hour ■ Estimate annual revenue - $366,080 22 Parking Meter Information SACRAMENTO 1 0 LORI ARCH T. 0 rttl r'1 ritt1 It +I +11+111 GHUR t i rirtirtirii I�� is • • 041 • • • • i 00 40 i • • • I Questions