View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Downtown Parking Investment Policy
CCRA November 15, 2018
Rick Williams, Rick Williams Consulting
1
Presentation Overview
2
• Reason for Policy Discussion
• Recap of Existing Parking Program Goals and Current Investment Policy
• Costs of Parking and Investment Strategy Spectrum
• Three Options for City Participation
• Feedback from PAC, PC, and CCRA
Why Does Policy Need to be Revisited?
3
• Growing concerns regarding availability of parking, particularly employee parking
• Pressure on City to respond to dwindling supply in order to keep downtown on positive economic footing
• Since recession, City has not invested in new parking facilities but previously participated in several structures
• As opportunities to participate in parking structures arise, what should City’s stance be?
Goals for Downtown Parking Program
4
Create a healthy parking ecosystem by:
• Encouraging a vital mix of high-density urban land uses
• Increasing user awareness: right car in the right stall
• Promoting a greater percentage of trips by alternative modes
• Ensuring sustained financial stability
Current Parking Investment Policy (new supply)
5
• Focuses public parking investments on patron (visitor) parking
• Discourages City role in investing public funds to provide employee or resident parking
• Employee and residential parking is the responsibility of the private sector
• Pay as-you go (low debt risk); financially sustainable
Cost and Funding of New Supply
6
• Estimated @ $45K per stall (5%/20years)
• Requires multiple funding sources
• Currently very difficult in Vancouver market (@ about $100 per stall/per mo./gross)
• General fund is a backstop if City owns
Fees/Charges
Land Divestment Funds
Fees in Lieu/LID Parking Tax
Bonds/Grant General Fund
Cost = $300-400/
stall per month
Other Cities: Parking Investment Spectrum • Most prioritize building public parking for visitors, not employees/residents • Some are not actively engaged in building parking
7
Less Engaged
More Engaged
1. Private Sector Approach: City Maintain Existing Assets as Visitor Parking
2. Partner Approach: Public Investment in Visitor Parking Only (non ownership position)
3. Public “All-in” Approach: Proactive Public Investment in Parking Facilities that serve all types of users
Three Main Policy Options for Investment in Parking
8
Investment Strategy Options
9
No Role in New Parking
City Leads
(all users)
Current Vancouver Policy
Investment Strategy • No new investments in Off-Street Supply
Implications for existing assets • Divest of all non-visitor off-street facilities over time and as is
advantageous to City and budget • Transition focus to maximizing on-street system performance.
Code implications • Eliminate minimum parking requirements / eliminate accessory
designations for parking.
Option 1: Maintain Existing Assets as Visitor Parking
10
Funding sources • None needed for capital projects. All surpluses to existing debt
burden. • Establish a capital account for any properties divested.
Risk Level
• Low
Option 1: Maintain Existing Assets as Visitor Parking
11
Option 1 Private Sector Approach: Pros & Cons
12
Pros Cons
• Clear message that market will take care of parking need
• Elimination of parking minimums (simplifies code) and promotes shared use
• Use existing funds and potential divestments of property to reduce current general fund debt burden
• Existing assets transition to higher mix of visitor parking as demand grows
• No investment risk or assumption of new financial burden
• Parking garage development is still not financially feasible in Vancouver market
• Relies on the private sector to build more parking – not financially viable for private sector either
• May not address current parking issues for quite some time, resulting in potential lack of new investment
Option 2: Invest only in Visitor Parking (Partner)
13
Investment Strategy • Strategically invest in private parking developments to ensure
visitor access as opportunities present themselves. • Funding tied to operating agreement for visitor access
management (no ownership position). Implications for existing assets • Phased transition of existing off-street supply to higher mix of
visitor use. • Evaluate divesting of existing off-street facilities with little visitor
demand potential.
Option 2: Invest only in Visitor Parking (Partner)
14
Code implications • Eliminate minimum parking requirements / eliminate accessory
designations for parking (Same as Option 1) Funding sources • Parking fund, general fund, funds from property divestment, on-
street surpluses Risk Level • Low to Moderate (all risk to private owner / enforcement of
development agreement)
Option 2: Partner Approach: Pros & Cons
15
Pros Cons
• Elimination of parking minimums and promotion of shared use
• Buys down cost of parking in new developments and ensures growth in visitor parking capacity
• City may use public property (land) as contribution to project in exchange for visitor parking
• All financial risk assumed by private sector
• Uses a “full sign never goes up” approach to development agreements
• May still not provide enough “discount” for new garages to be viable Enforcement of operating agreements is required
• Requires on-going public/private operating partnership and marketing/communications coordination
• Current demand for parking is more for employee, less so visitor; however, could transition to visitor parking over time
Option 3: All in – Lead/Invest in Multi-use Garages
16
Investment Strategy • Invest in strategically located garage(s) serving multiple parking
users. • Private developers have option not to build parking in return for
access entitlements into City facility(ies). Implications for existing assets
• Evaluate divesting of existing off-street facilities that do not contribute to consolidating supplies.
• Eliminate on-street employee permit program to force demand to new facility(ies).
Option 3: All in – Lead/Invest in Multi-use Garages
17
Code implications • Current minimum requirements become optional entitlements
purchased through discounted fee-in-lieu Funding sources
• Fees-in-lieu, LID on existing buildings, Parking fund, general fund, funds from property divestment, new tax revenue
Risk Level • High (all risk to City as owner); likely would have to subsidize
payment of debt service for new structured parking from other sources
Option 3 All-In Approach: Pros & Cons
18
Pros Cons
• Lowers cost of new development. • City takes leadership role, maintains
more control of overall parking system • Inspires confidence to private sector,
potentially increasing private investment
• High financial risk / general fund is ultimately responsible
• Need to assemble multiple funding sources; highly complicated
• Sites must be available / possible need to front-end facility ahead of “entitlements”
• Entitlements for guaranteed parking must be managed in perpetuity
• Private sector may not agree to fees-in-lieu (even if discounted)
Discussion Questions
Lot 16
• What should City’s role be in ensuring ample parking for all users? For visitors?
• What should the private sector’s role be in providing parking to visitors, tenants and residents?
• Which option fits best given the need for employee parking and associated risks?
19
Next Steps
Lot 16
• Following feedback from Council, staff plans to draft a resolution to formalize Council’s policy regarding investment in public parking
• Tentative Council date for consideration of a resolution would be December 17, 2018
20
Questions and Discussion
Chad Eiken, Community and Economic Development Director, chad.eiken@cityofvancouver.us
Rick Williams, Rick Williams Consulting
Recommended