Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-18 City Commission Packet Materials - A3. Code Modifications for Residential Parking Permit DistrictsICommission MemorandumREPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City CommissionFROMEd Meece, Parking Program ManagerSUBJECT:Municipal code modifications regarding the creation, operation, expansion,and dissolution of Residential Parking Permit Districts; and considerationof whether new residential parking districts should be created along thenorthern and southern boundaries of the Downtown B-3 area.MEETING DATE: April23,20l8AGENDAITEMTYPE: ACTION/DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Manager, or their designee, to draft an ordinanceamending the Bozeman Municipal Code with regard to creation, operation, expansion, anddissolution of residential parking permit districts. The Parking Program Manager does notrecommend establishing new residential parking permit districts to the immediate north and southof downtown, at this time.RECOMMEND MOTION: After listening to the staff presentation and public comment, I moveto direct the City Manager to draft an ordinance amending the Bozeman Municipal Code withregard to creation, operation, expansion, and dissolution of residential parking permit districts.BACKGROUND: In November 2017, the Bozeman City Commission asked the City Managerto study and make recoÍìmendations regarding the creation of additional residential parking permitdistricts, and/or use of alternative parking management strategies, to the immediate north and southof the downtown core (B-3).The 2016 Strateeic Parking Management Plan recommends such an effort as Strategy #19:"Explore changes to existing residential on-street permit programs and evaluate and potentiallyimplement new residential parking permit districts in the neighborhoods north and south of thedowntown commercial district." However, each successive strategy benefits from previousstrategy implementations, deploying available resources in the most eflective manner possible. Achallenge of this report is that several parking management strategies identified in the 2016Strategic Parking Management Plan have not yet been fully implemented; such as changes to code-based minimums, enhanced public transportation, and off-street shared use agreements.Residential Parking Permit Districts (RPPD) are a method employed by many municipalities formitigating the 'spillover' of non-residential parking into a residential area. The City of Bozeman188 2has two RPPDs: the Montana State University District in neighborhoods adjacent to Montana StateUniversity, and the High School District encompassing streets near Bozeman Senior High School.Residents within a Bozeman RPPD may purchase an annual on-street parking permit ($25) foreach vehicle they own, and up to two (2) visitor permits per dwelling (S25). Likewise, businesso\ryners and employees, within the RPPD, may purchase an annual on-street parking permit ($25).Individuals that park on-street, within the RPPD, during operational hours, without a permit. mayreceive a parking cit¿tion for each offénse.The Bozeman Municipal Code identifies the process by which the City Commission will create anRPPD, as well as regulations related to the administration and enforcement of the RPPDs. Therein,the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) states that the creation of an RPPD should satisfu one ormore of the following objectives:o Promoting tranquility among commuters and residents;. Reducing noise;. Reducing traffic hazards; oro Reducing litter.While each of these objectives is a desirable goal, the issues surrounding on-street parking supply,and the relationship to residential and economic prosperity, have increased in complexity sincecreation of the existing RPPDs. In context of Bozeman's unprecedented growth and economicexpansion, it seems prudent to consider meaningful enhancements of the Bozeman MunicipalCode related to RPPDs. By doing so, the City Commission better defines the policy frameworkupon which future decisions regarding the creation, operation, expansion, and dissolution ofRPPD's are made.Comparing the Bozeman Municipal Code to other jurisdictions successfully utilizing residentialparking permit districts, and industry best practices, it is clear that significant revision is needed tobalance residential parking concems with the highest use of a public asset - that is, on streetparking. For this reason, the Parking Program Manager recommends that the City of Bozemanmove away from the 'exclusive use' model of our current Residential Parking Permit progr¿ìm,and allow for public parking within the RPPDs on a time limited basis. In effect, the RPPDbecomes a time limited parking zoîe- an RPPD permit holder, however, is exempt from the timelimit regulations.In order to implement such a program, reconmended changes to the Bozeman Municipal Codeare:Creation of a Residential Parkine Permit Districtl) A petition for the establishment of a residential parking permit district must be signed by5l%o of all residential dwelling units', or 5lYo of all owners", within the boundaries of theproposed district:a) The proposed RPPD must be primarily residential in character;b) The proposed RPPD shall be of no fewer than l0 block faces, or 2500 feet of linear curb;2) Upon presentation of a valid petition, as outlined above, the Bozeman Parking Commissionshall proceed with data collection efforts for the establishment of an RPPD.3) The BPC will perform the data collection necessary to determine:189 3a)meet, or exceed, 85olo occupancy for a continuous period of at least three hours on 3separate days?b)reside at addresses outside the proposed district?c) The City of Bozeman must be mindful of community factors, seasonal usage, temporaryconstruction, etc., when choosing data collection dates, so as to reflect the most 'typical'demonstration of parking supply/demand as possible.d) The 85% occupancy standard is applied to the entire proposed district not to a singleblock or street.4) Upon completion of data collection, the BPC will consider the issue, at a regularly scheduledmeeting, and vote regarding a resolution to recommend the creation of an RPPD to theBozeman City Commission. The results of this vote, and/or the resolution, are thenforwarded to the Bozeman City Commission.5) If, after consideration and an affirmative vote, the City Commission desires to create anRPPD they would enact an ordinance to that effect; to include -a) The designated public streets (and block faces) for the proposed districtb) Hours of each day, and days of each week, that the residential parking permit regulationsshall be in effect, and time limits for non-residents to park in that districtc) The individuals eligible to purchase a permitd) Effective dates of annual permitse) Fee structures for permits, number of vehicles allowed to receive a permit per residence,and the cost for the first and successive vehicle permits.Ð Residents who qualifu for low-income social services benefits (e.g. SNAP, WIC, TANF,and SSI) may receive their first vehicle permit at a reduced cost (?)."'g) Any special provisions or exceptions applicable to schools, churches, businesses, parks,etc., within the residential district.h) Visitor permits or special gathering provisions for the residential district.6) The City may permit the sale of 'out of district' employee or commuter permits based on itsunderstanding of available parking occupancy and capacity following establishment of theRPPD.7) An RPPD permit is to be automatically revoked, once residency is established outside thedistrict for more than thirty days.8) After the first two citations in a twelve month period, subsequent citations will result in anescalation of the fine amount to a level that is ten dollars ($10) higher than the previouscitation.9) Upon adoption of any ordinance by the City Commission designating an area for residentialpermit parking, signs shall be erected along the streets identified in the ordinance prior to anyenforcement of the residential parking permit regulation pursuant to section 36.04.090. Theparking signs erected shall give notice of the general nature of the parking limitation andshall indicate the hours and days when such parking limitations shall be in effect.l0)Nothing in this ordinance should prevent the Bozeman City Commission, or BozemanParking Commission, from initiating this process independently.l l) The amount of the fees for a residential parking permit shall be established by resolution ofthe City Commission, at a level that covers the cost of administration and enforcement of theresidential parking permit regulations in the residential district.190 41) A petition must be signed by a representative of 5l%o of all residential dwelling units, or5l% of owners of those properties, of the area within the residential parking permitdistrict proposed for dissolution.2) The City Commission may initiate dissolution as it deems appropriate, including if theCity Commission determines that less than SlVo of properties within the district havepurchased at least one permit within a twelve month period.1) A petition must be signed by a representative of 5l%o of all residential dwelling units, or51% of owners of those properties, within the boundaries of the area proposed forexpansion of an existing RPPD.2) The City Commission, or Bozeman Parking Commission, may initiate such expansion ofa residential parking permit district as it deems appropriate.The Parking Program Manager does not recommend that existing RPPDs be required to satisff thenew parking occupancy standards to remain intact. However, it is recommended that those codesections dealing with operation of an RPPD (ex., time limited public parking), as well asdissolution or expansion, would apply to existing districts.As part of this report, a technical memorandum is provided, from Rick V/illiams Consulting,discussing how communities utilize an 85%o occupancy standard to manage parking. A key pointin that memorandum, and otherwise reflected in our research, is that communities set theiroccupancy triggers at, or below, the 85%o standard based on how intensely they desire to manageparking occupancy in a given area. This policy decision is reflective of non-quantitative factorssuch as community character, and economic strategy, in addition to parking inventory/occupancydata.In the above code framework, accurate and timely data collection is important to evaluate the needof an RPPD in a proposed area. The Parking Services Division's recent purchase of mobile licenseplate recognition (LPR) technology provides an internal capability to perform these data collectiontasks on an on-going basis.A review of existing data from the 2017 Downtown Parking Occupancy Study'u against the 85%occupancy standard reveals that the following residential areas, adjacent to downtown, would seemto meet the peak hour occupancy requirements for establishment of an RPPD - if the recommendedcode updates were implemented:o Beall to LammeÆ.{. Willson to N. Montana (blocks 314,516,7 of WTI study)"o Olive to Curtiss/S. Tracy to Lindley Place (btocks 48,49,50 of rWTI study)However, the City does not have data regarding the registered address of parked vehicles, in theseareas, in order to determine the level of commuter parking that is occurring within the peak period;as required by the proposed standards. In addition, the 2017 Downtown Parking Occupancy Studydid not count parking inventory/occupancy in the residential areas immediately adjacent to thedowntown.191 5For these reasons, the Parking Program Manager recommends against the establishment of anynew residential parking permit districts at this time. Instead, the Parking Services Division, andBozeman Parking Commission, should work diligently to fully implement the 2016 StrategicParking Management Plan and collect the appropriate data needed to make future decisionsconcerning the establishment of new residential parking permit districts.In addition to the creation, and or expansion of RPPDs, the Parking Services Division intends toexplore how the creation of Parking Management Zones, at appropriate areas within thecommunity, might help to identiff and address parking concerns on a neighborhood level. Thisapproach places data collection and analysis, as well as strategy deployment, into the cultural andcharacter context of a local area; avoiding a one size fits all method ofpublic parking management.To this point, the Parking Services Division has had limited public input on this topic. However,going forward the Parking Services Division intends to undertake meaningful public engagementefforts with citizens, neighborhood associations, and other stakeholders to solicit feedback onpotential changes to the residential parking permit districts.FISCAL EFFECTS: No substantial fiscal effects are expected in order to implement changes tothe Bozeman Municipal Code regarding the creation, operation, expansion, and dissolution of newresidential parking permit districts. However, a recommendation, or subsequent action, related tothe creation of a district would certainly entail additional administrative and enforcement costs.The level of these costs would depend on the scope of permitting and enforcement desired withina new district. This fiscal information would be a part of any recommendation(s) from theBozeman Parking Commission for creation of a new residential parking permit district.Attachments:Bozeman Municipal Code, 36.04.330 - 36.04.365"White faper - 85olo Rule", Rick Williams Consulting, 2128/184ll2ll8 Research Grid & BibliographyReport compiled on: 4l 12/ 18End Notes'For the purpose of this petition, only one resident, or owner, per property, or leased unit within a propeúycontaining multiple dwelling units, shall count as a valid signature.iiAn owner of multiple properties within the proposed district may sign only once.iiiThe reduced cost permit benefit is currently not part of the RPPD program.i' Western Transportation Institute" The WTI study 'blocks' are data blocks, not typical street blocks.192 Sec. 36.04.330. - Procedure for the establ¡shment of a residential on-street parking permit regulationprogram.A. Pursuant to the powers granted to local governments pursuant to state law to regulate the standingor parking of vehicles on public streets, the use of public streets and traffic upon public streets, thecity commission may, after holding a public hearing on any residential parking permit proposal,create, pursuant to ordinance, areas of the city to be designated as residential parking permit areasduring specified times of the day and week if the city commission finds that the residential area underconsideration for such a designation is:1. Predominantly residential in character;2. An area the streets of which are regularly congested with vehicles parked by persons notresiding in the area; and3. An area where limiting the parking of vehicles along the public streets better provides adequatemotor vehicle parking for residents of the area; and finds that the creation of a residentialparking permit area in the residential area under consideration would further one or more of thefollowing objectives:a. Promoting tranquility among commuters and residents;b. Reducing noise,c. Reducing traffic hazards; ord. Reducing litter.B. Any ordinance designating an area of the city as a residential permit parking area shall describe:1. The designated public street area along which parking will be limited to vehicles registered to orcontrolled and exclusively used by persons residing in the area;2. Hours of each day and days of each week that the residential parking permit regulations shallbe in effect;3. The individuals eligible to purchase a permit;4. Effective dates of annual permits;5. Any special provisions or exceptions applicable to schools, churches, businesses, public parkuse, etc. within the residentialarea; and6. Visitor permit or special gathering provisions for the residential area.C. Upon adoption of any ordinance by the city commission designating an area for residential permitparking only, signs shall be erected along the streets identified in the ordinance prior to anyenforcement of the residential parking permit regulation pursuant to section 36.04.090. The parkingsigns erected shall give notice of the general nature of the parking limitation and shall indicate thehours and days when such parking limitations shall be in effect.(Code 1982, $ 10.32.350; Ord. No. 1345, $ 1,1992; Ord. No. 1376, $ l, 1993)Sec. 35.04.350. - Residential parking permits.A. Application procedure. Applications for residential parking permits shall be submitted to the city on aprescribed form and shall be accompanied by proof in a form satisfactory to the city of the applicant'splace of residence within the residential parking permit only area, as well as proof of registration ofuse and control of each vehicle for which a residential parking permit is sought. Each applicationshall be accompanied by the appropriate fee for each vehicle for which a parking permit is sought.No part of the parking permit fees shall be refundable. The amount of the fees shall be established193 by resolution at the level that covers the cost of administration and enforcement of the residentialparking permit regulations in the residential area.B. Form andissuance.1. Upon approval by the city of the application of any person residing in a residential parkingpermit only area, a residential parking permit shall be issued for each vehicle receivingapproval. Upon approval by the city of the application of any person residing in a residentialparking permit only area for a temporary visitor's permit, such permit shall be issued by the city.No more than two temporary visitor's parking permits shall be issued annually for a single. residential dwelling unit. Temporary visitors' parking permits shall be used only by visitors of thedwelling unit to which the permits were issued and are valid only while visiting that dwelling unit.2. Each residential parking permit issued by the city for a vehicle shall set forth at least the date ofissuance and the license number of the vehicle for which it is issued. Each temporary visitor'spermit issued by the city shall set forth at least the date of issuance and the address of theresident to which it is issued. Annual permits shall be required. A permit shall be valid for nolonger than the permit year of issuance and is not transferrable. The issuance of a residentialparking permit does not serve as a guarantee that there will always be a parking spaceavailable for the permit holder on the public streets within the designated residential parkingpermit area.C. Lav,tfuldisplayrequired.1. Unless otherwise agreed to by a city parking controlofficer in writing, residential parking permitsshall be affixed to the left rear bumper and temporary visitors' permits and employee permitsshall be hung from the interior rearview mirror facing the windshield. lt is unlawful to either fail todisplay or improperly display a residential parking permit, or to attempt to use a residentialparking permit from another area in a designated residential area.2. lt is unlawful for the holder of a residential parking permit to fail to surrender it when directed todo so.3. lt is unlawful for any person to represent in any fashion that a vehicle is entitled to a residentialparking permit authorized by subsection A of this section or other applicable provisions when itis not so entitled. The display of a residential parking permit on a vehicle not entitled to such apermit shall constitute such a representation.4. lt is unlar¡vful for any person to duplicate, by any means, a parking permit authorized bysubsection A of this section or other applicable provisions. lt is also unlawful for any person todisplay on any vehicle such a duplicate parking permit.(Code 1982, $$ 1032370-1032.390; Ord. No. 1345, $$ 3-5, 1992; Ord. No. 1383, $ 1,1994;Ord. No. 1401, $$ 1,2,1995)Sec. 36.04.360. - Montana State University ResidentialOn-street Parking Permit Regulation Program.A. The area designated, pursuant to this article, as the Montana State University Residential On-StreetParking Permit Program, and hereinafter referred to as "MSU Residential District," shall be as follows(listed streets and avenues include the full right-of-way unless specifically noted):Beginning at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 12th Avenue and West DickersonStreet, thence southerly along the west right-of-way of South 12th Avenue to the north right-of-way ofWest Alderson Street, thence westerly along the north right-of-way of West Alderson Street to thewest right-of-way of South 13th Avenue, thence southerly along the west right-of-way of South 13thAvenue to the centerline of West College Street, thence easterly along the centerline of WestCollege Street to the centerline of South 8th Avenue, thence southerly along the centerline of West8th Avenue to the centerline of West Harrison Street, thence easterly along the centerline of WestHarrison Street to the centerline of South 6th Avenue, thence southerly along the centerline of South194 6th Avenue to the centerline of West Grant Street, thence easterly along the centerline of West GrantStreet to the centerline of the alley between South 5th Avenue and South 6th Avenue, thencesoutherly along the centerline of the alley between South Sth Avenue and South 6th Avenue to thesouth right-of-way of West Grant Street, thence easterly along the south right-of-way of West GrantStreet to the west right-of-way of South 5th Avenue, thence southerly along the west right-of-way ofSouth Sth Avenue to the north right-of-way of West Lincoln Street, thence easterly along the northright-of-way of West Lincoln Street to the centerline of South 3rd Avenue, thence southerly along thecenterline of South 3rd Avenue to the north right-of-way of West Kagy Boulevard, thence easterlyalong the north right-of-way of West Kagy Boulevard to the east right-of-way of South 3rd Avenue,thence northerly along the east right-of-way of South 3rd Avenue to the south right-of-way of SouthGrand Avenue, thence northerly along the south/east right-of-way of South Grand Avenue to thenorth right-of-way of West Lincoln Street, thence easterly along the north right-of-way of WestLincoln Street to the west right-of-way of South Willson Avenue, thence northerly along the westright-of-way of South Willson Avenue to the north right-of-way of West Cleveland Street, thencewesterly along the north right-of-way of West Cleveland Street to the east right-of-way of South 3rdAvenue, thence northerly along the east right-of-way of South 3rd Avenue to the south right-of-wayof West Harrison Street, thence easterly along the south right-of-way of West Harrison Street to thewest right-of South Grand Avenue, thence northerly along the west right-of-way of South GrandAvenue to the north right-of-way of West Harrison Street, thence westerly along the north right-of-way of West Harrison Street to the east right-of-way of South Sth Avenue, thence northerly along theeast right-of-way of South Sth Avenue to the south right-of-way of West College Street, thenceeasterly along the south right-of-way of West College Street to the west right-of-way South 4thAvenue, thence northerly along the west right-of-way of South 4th Avenue to the north right-of-way ofWest College Street, thence westerly along the north right-of-way of West College Street to thecenterline of South 5th Avenue, thence northerly along the centerline of South Sth Avenue to thenorth right-of-way of West Alderson Street, thence easterly along the north right-of-way of WestAlderson Street to the east right-of-way of South 5th Avenue, thence northerly along the east right-of-way of South 5th Avenue to the north right-of-way of West Dickerson Street, thence westerlyalong the north right-of-way of West Dickerson Street to the east right-of-way of South 7th Avenue,thence northerly along the east right-of-way of South 7th Avenue to the south right-of-way of WestStory Street, thence easterly along the south right-of-way of West Story Street to the west right-of-way of South 7th Avenue, thence southerly along the west right-of-way of South 7th Avenue to thenorth right-of-way of West Dickerson Street, thence westerly along the north right-of-way of WestDickerson Street to the centerline of South 8th Avenue, thence northerly along the centerline ofSouth 8th Avenue to the north right-of-way of West Koch Street, thence westerly to the west right-of-way of South 8th Avenue, thence southerly to the north right-of-way of West Story Street, thencewesterly along the north right-of-way of West Story Street to the east right-of-way of South 10thAvenue, thence southerly along the east right-of-way of South lOth Avenue to the centerline of WestStory Street, thence easterly along the centerline of West Story Street to the centerline of South 9thAvenue, thence southerly along the centerline of South 9th Avenue to the north right-of-way of WestDickerson Street, thence westerly along the north right-of-way of West Dickerson Street to the Pointof Beginning.The district shall also include South 14th Avenue from West Dickerson Street to West CollegeStreet, the western half of South 15th Avenue from West Dickerson Street to West Alderson Street,South 1Sth from West Alderson Street to West College Street, and West Alderson Street from South13th Avenue to South l4th Avenue.B. lt is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any street within the area listed in36.04.360.4 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for legalholidays, except for the following circumstances:1. Those vehicles displaying a valid MSU residential parking permit, a temporary MSU visitor'spermit for that location, or a MSU service provider permit;2. An emergency vehicle, including, but not limited to an ambulance, fire engine or police vehicle;or195 3. A clearly marked business vehicle which is under the control of a person providing a service topersons or property located in the MSU residential district, including but not limited to deliveryvehicles.C. These regulations will be enforced by the city police department.D. The department of public works will post signs in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic-Control Devices that indicate the general nature of the restrictions and the hours and days when therestrictions are in effect.E. Permits shall be issued for an annual permit year beginning September 1.F. The amount of the permit fees shall be established by resolution.G. Permits shall be issued by the city police department. Permits may be issued for motor vehicles onlyupon application by a legal resident within the MSU residential district who has a motor vehicleregistered in the applicant's name, or who has a motor vehicle for the applicant's exclusive use andunder the applicant's control; and satisfying the requirements of section 36.04.350.4 and B.H. No more than two visitor permits shall be issued annually to each single residential dwelling unit foruse by visitor vehicles.L Nonresidential uses may be provided with posted time limit parking as approved by the director ofpublic works.J. Each business owner or individualemployed within the MSU residential district is eligible to purchaseone residential permit.K. Annual visitor permits may be issued to nonresidential uses located within the district forcircumstances not otherwise provided for within this section.L. Upon request by a resident or employer within the MSU residential district, the police departmentmay issue special gathering permits.M. Residential permits shall become void if either the owner/operator of the vehicle moves out of theMSU residential district or the owner/operator of the vehicle sells the vehicle. A permit holder whomoves within the MSU residential district or purchases another vehicle and desires to transfer thepermit must apply for such transfer and pay the fee as established by resolution.N. The MSU residentialdistrict boundaries may be revised by ordinance.(Code 1982, $ 10.32.395; Ord.No. 1377,52,1994;Ord.No. 1384, $2,1994;Ord.No. 1391, $2,1994; Ord. No. 1392, $ 2,1994; Ord. No. 1393, $ 2,1994; Ord. No. 1395, $ 2,1994; Ord. No.1401, $ 3,1995; Ord. No. 1405, $ 2,1995; Ord. No. 1415, $ 2,1996; Ord. No. 1536, $ 2, 4-30-2001; Ord. No. 1537, $ 20,5-29-2002; Ord. No. 1640, ç 4,6-6-2005; Ord. No. 1644, $ 2, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1705,52,5-29-2007; Ord. No. 1715, 52,8-27-2007; Ord. No. 1716, 52,9-4-2007; Ord. No. 1789,5 1,7-12-2010; Ord. No. 1870, S 2. 12-16-2013 ; Ord. No. 1892, S 1. 7-7-2014 )Sec. 36.04.365. - Bozeman Senior High School Residential On-Street Parking Permit RegulationProgram.A. The streets designated, pursuant to this section, as the Bozeman Senior High School ResidentialOn-Street Parking Permit Program, and hereinafter referred to as "BSHS Residential District," shallbe as follows:East side of N. 11th between Mendenhall and Durston;Both sides of N. 1Oth between Mendenhalland Durston;Both sides of N. 9th between Mendenhall and Villard;196 B.Both sides of W. Villard from N. 9th to N. 11th;Both sides of W. Beallfrom N. 9th to N. 11th;Both sides of W. Lamme from N. 9th to N. 11th;North side of W. Mendenhallfrom N. 9th to N. 11th;West side of N. 1Sth from W. Beallto Durston;Portions of the east side of N. 15th including the 100 and 200 blocks and from 410 N. 15th north toDurston;West side of S. 11th from Babcock to Curtiss;East side of S. 11th from Babcock to Olive;Both sides of S. 1Oth from Main to Olive;West side of S. 9th from Babcock to Olive;Both sides of West Babcock from S. 9th to S. I 1th,North side of West Olive from S. 9th to S. 11th;Both sides of West Beallfrom N. 1sth to N. 16th, including the streetfrontage adjacentto 1602 WestBeall, andThe east side of South Ninth Avenue, from West Babcock Street south to the alley between WestBabcock and West Olive Street.It is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any street within the area listed in36.04.365.A between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August 15to June 15, except for legal holidays, except for the following circumstances:1. Those vehicles displaying a valid Bozeman Senior High School residential parking permit, atemporary HS visitor's permit for that location, or a HS service provider permit;2. An emergency vehicle, including, but not limited to an ambulance, fire engine or police vehicle;or3. A clearly marked business vehicle which is under the control of a person providing a service topersons or property located in the BSHS Residential District, including but not limited to deliveryvehicles.C. These regulations will be enforced by the city police department.D. The department of public works will post signs in accordance with the Manual on Uniform TrafficControl Devices that indicate the general nature of the restrictions and the hours and days when therestrictions are in effect.E. Permits shall be issued for an annual permit year beginning August 1.F. The amount of the permit fees shall be established by resolution.G. Permits shall be issued by the city police department. Permits may be issued for motor vehicles onlyupon application by a legal resident within the BSHS Residential District who has a motor vehicleregistered in the applicant's name, or who has a motor vehicle for the applicant's exclusive use andunder the applicant's control; and satisfying the requirements of section 36.04.350.A and B.H. No more than two visitor permits shall be issued annually to each single residential dwelling unit foruse by visitor vehicles.l. Nonresidential uses may be provided with posted time limit parking as approved by the director ofpublic works.J. Each business owner or individual employed within the BSHS Residential District is eligible topurchase one residential permit.197 K. Annual visitor permits may be issued to nonresidential uses located within the district forcircumstances not otherwise provided for within this section.L. Upon request by a resident or employer within the BSHS Residential District, the city policedepartment may issue special gathering permitsM. Residential permits shall become void if either the owner/operator of the vehicle moves out of theBSHS Residential District or the owner/operator of the vehicle sells the vehicle. A permit holder whomoves within the BSHS Residential District or purchases another vehicle and desires to transfer thepermit must apply for such transfer and pay the fee as established by resolution.N. The BSHS Residential District boundaries may be revised by ordinance.(Ord. No. 1542, $ 2(10.32.396),7-23-2001; Ord. No. 1568, 52,7-22-2002; ord. No. 1870. S 3, 12-16-2013 )198 City of Bozeman Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan White Paper – 85% Rule February 15, 2018 (v2) I. BACKGROUND Bozeman’s 2016 Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan resulted in implementation of a policy and organizational action strategy adopting “the 85% Rule as the standard for measuring performance of the parking supply and triggering specific management strategies and rate ranges.”1 The plan also approved Guiding Principles for “active capacity management” that calls for the “use [of] the 85% Rule as a parking occupancy standard to inform and guide decision-making.”2 Since approval of the 2016 Plan, City staff and downtown stakeholders have requested more information as to best practices related to the on-the-ground implementation of the 85% Rule. This summary provides more detail and examples from other cities as to how the 85% Rule supports strategic parking management decision-making and active capacity management of varying types of parking supply. II. “85% RULE” – WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN FOR YOUR PARKING “SUPPLY?” Anyone who talks about parking these days will inevitably run across the phrase the “85% Rule.” Though this standard for parking management has been a common tool within the parking industry for decades, the concept was elevated to wider public attention by UCLA Professor Donald Shoup, in his 2005 book, The High Cost of Free Parking. 3 On-street parking Shoup’s focus is with on-street parking and suggests that any single block face that routinely exceeds 85% should be priced to ensure that there is always a 15% buffer of available parking “at the curb.” As such, higher rates should be charged on block faces with high occupancies and a lower rate (or no rate) on block faces that have lower occupancies; a system called variable rate or performance based pricing. According to Dr. Shoup, charging a higher, “fair market price” for parking at constrained curb spaces facilitates turnover (which is beneficial to business sales), reduces congestion, improves air quality and generates a revenue source for cities to re-invest back into the districts from which parking revenue is derived. 1 City of Bozeman, Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan, Project Summary and Recommendations for Parking Management (July 5, 2016), page 11. 2Ibid. Guiding Principle 3(a), page 7. 3 Donald Shoup (2005), The High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press. 199 2 | Page Off-street parking The same approach is taken for off-street parking facilities, using the 85% occupancy standard to calibrate rates for hourly, daily and monthly permit parking. Lots or garages that maintain high levels of occupancy, charge higher fees than those that maintain lower occupancies. An example is illustrated in Figure A from Leavenworth, Washington. In Leavenworth, occupancy data from off-street facilities is compiled in a heat map format, which allows their parking managers and Advisory Committee to evaluate use and pricing from a demand perspective. Lots in excess of 85% will be priced accordingly in relationship to other facilities with lesser demands. Figure A: Example of Using 85% Rule for Decision-making (Leavenworth, WA) The City of Salem, Oregon also uses the 85% rule to trigger pricing decisions and manage monthly parking permits. When a facility routinely exceeds 85% peak hour occupancy, monthly rates at the facility are increased and/or the number of permits sold at the facility is reduced to ensure that visitor trips are not jeopardized. Salem further calibrates off-street rates against their highest occupied garage. As such, if the highest rate charged for monthly parking at the most constrained facility is $100 per month, prices of permits at other garages with (for example) 60% peak occupancies will charge $60 200 3 | Page per month for permits; at 40% occupancy permits will be $40. The purpose being to charge higher rates at high density “premium” garages, with lower rates at underused garages. The varied rates also serve as an incentive for users to seek out lower priced supply; spreading parking demand over all facilities in the Salem public system, as opposed to a system (as in some cities) where rates in all public facilities are the same – regardless of demand. In both the Leavenworth and Salem examples, the 85% Rule serves as the trigger for initiating discussion and decision-making regarding rate increases and/or managing permit sales. Residential Neighborhoods The 85% Rule is also used in situations where spillover of visitor and employee parking from commercial corridors into residential neighborhoods that abut commercial corridors occurs. In these situations, the 85% Rule serves as an effective measure of constraint indicating that access to parking by residents is adversely impacted by non-residential users. This situation also occurs in areas where large institutions (e.g., hospitals, college campuses) abut or locate within an area that is primarily zoned for residential use. Cities that use an occupancy measure to trigger neighborhood parking management strategies include Boise, Idaho; Boulder, Colorado; Bend, Corvallis and Portland, Oregon; and Tacoma, Washington (to name only a few). In each of these cities, when the occupancy standard is exceeded, a policy framework has been established that allows a neighborhood association to request action, discussion and /or initiation of strategies to prioritize parking access on residential streets for residential users. The most common solution implemented is creation of a residential parking permit zone (RPPZ). RPPZs allow parking management, usually through parking permits and time limits that give preference to residents and their guests when instances of constraint create conflicts between residential and commercial parking demands.4 Those who live in the area may be provided or purchase a permit to allow parking beyond a posted visitor time limit within the residential parking permit zone.5 III. APPLYING THE 85% RULE STANDARD Whether in on-street, off-street or residential contexts; the “85% Rule” is truly a strategic and beneficial tool to include in any parking management plan, particularly as the use of this standard underscores and facilitates parking problem solving within an objective, measurable framework. Unfortunately, the national hype over The High Cost of Free Parking has led some cities to jump into strategy 4 In most cities requests are made through a community initiated petition. 5 Provisions are made in some cities that allow for the sale of non-residential permits (e.g., employee permits from an adjacent commercial district) within RPPZs if there are demonstrated surpluses of parking within the zone that would allow for the sale of such permits without adverse impacts on access for residents and their guests. 201 4 | Page Bend, OR: Parking Management Zones (2002 Parking Management Plan) implementation before clearly developing a reason to do so. There can be several “problems” with a straight up Shoup-like approach to the 85% Rule, particularly in smaller cities that have traditionally operated with free supplies of parking. The first issue to explore is the definition of “parking supply” that is driven by the 85% Rule. For Shoup, the definition of supply is the supply at any single block face. Others in the industry would broaden the supply of parking to a more identifiable use area, for instance a retail district, “Main Street” or defined parking management zone. For example, the City of Vancouver, Washington has identified five parking management zones in its downtown; Bend and Canby, Oregon have three unique zones and the City of Portland thirteen in its downtown. The City of Bend establishes residential parking permit zones for areas as small as 10 block faces or 1,500 lineal feet of curb space. Rather than managing to the block face with the 85% Rule, these cities manage to an identifiable, walkable area or zone that uses the Rule to ensure convenient access to parking spaces within the zone. These management areas are usually uniquely land use based (e.g., retail core, government district, university district, residential cluster, etc.) where the primary land uses (and the priority parker for those land uses) drive parking activity. Each is uniquely managed to the 85% Rule standard. This is the approach that private operators of off-street garages have used for many years. It is rare that you experience different pricing on each floor of a garage; rather such pricing occurs when the entire facility (or zone) reaches 85%. Also, different facilities (“zones” or “districts”) have different rates. For an on-street system, picture a parking management zone as levels of a garage spread over a manageable area. Intersections are elevator lobbies and sidewalks are stairwells. The outcome is to manage a supply of parking to ensure that there are available parking stalls (a minimum of 15%) and a convenient time factor involved in getting a priority user parked and to their desired destination. For Main Street downtowns, it is not only important to ensure a convenient parking stall near destinations, but to reap the benefit of customers walking an area to experience other destination opportunities they may not have been aware of. In short, the 85% Rule is a common standard. How it is applied in different settings depends on how intensely a City wants to manage a unique supply. If the parking management area is too small (e.g., at the block face) “rules of use” of the parking in an area can be confusing to the user. If the area is too large, reaching 85% may never occur and sub-zones of constraint within that larger supply may never receive problem solving attention or action. 202 5 | Page Illustrating this dynamic is to use another example from Leavenworth, WA. Figure B provides a summary of on-street occupancy for parking in what is the downtown parking management district – comprised of 846 stalls. As the figure shows, peak occupancy reaches 59.3% weekdays and 72.6% weekends. If the 85% Rule were in play for the entire management district, one might argue that there is no need for immediate action. Figure B: Hourly Occupancy for Downtown Parking Management District (Leavenworth, WA) Figure C (next page) evaluates a more concentrated area of the larger parking management district identified as the Core Zone. For most in Leavenworth, the Core Zone clearly represents the historic downtown Main Street and highest concentration and cluster of businesses. This sub-zone is comprised of 512 on-street spaces. As the Figure demonstrates, weekend occupancies exceed 85% occupancy in nine of the ten surveyed hours. In fact, occupancies are over 90% most hours and actually exceed 100% in one hour (signs of illegal parking activity). Weekday occupancy does exceed 85% in one hour and approaches 85% in three other hours. Within this sub-zone, the 85% Rule would suggest additional parking management strategies and actions are needed. The point here is that the 85% Rule should be used strategically within a framework that uses the rule to reasonably measure the impact of parking – constraints and/or surpluses – within defined and recognizable impact zones. The purpose is to set a standard that encourages decision-making when problems arise. The industry has found that the 85% Rule is an objective measure of constraint and for 49.0%55.0%57.8%59.2%59.3%56.1%53.1%51.7%52.3%46.6%55.7%60.8%67.1%72.6%71.3%68.2%65.5%65.8%62.3%59.5%0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:30 PM 7:30 PM 2017 Leavenworth Parking Utilization All on-street stalls: Weekday vs weekend occupancies (846 stalls) Weekday Weekend 203 6 | Page Whether at the block face or zone level, the 85% Rule is a powerful management tool and trigger for decision-making that supports the unique parking and economic development priorities of a downtown or sub-district. The 85% Rule should be a key decision-making and action trigger, intended to initiate tailored parking management strategies based on demand (85% Rule) and supportive of area plans and visions. targeting problems within a parking system. The Rule is understandable to stakeholders and allows what might be difficult decisions to be made where they might otherwise be avoided. Figure C: Hourly Occupancy for Downtown Parking Management Sub-zone (Leavenworth, WA) IV. BEING COST EFFECTIVE The second issue related to the 85% Rule is the potential costs associated with its implementation at the level described by Shoup. Cities that already have parking revenue collection equipment (meters and/or pay stations) are better equipped to initiate programs that stratify rates by demand, whether at the block face (as in San Francisco) or by zone (as in Bend and Portland, OR).6 However, in many smaller towns and cities, the cost of equipment necessary to implement parking rates might be too costly to cover the expense of installing and managing flexible rates, particularly in downtowns that have pockets of high demand surrounded by underutilized supply. To this end, the first step toward effective use of the 85% Rule begins with calibrating time stays to the needs of priority 6 In Portland different parking districts have different hourly rates because of occupancy/demand variations between districts (e.g., Downtown = $1.60/hr., Central Eastside = $1.25/hr. and Lloyd District = $1.00 /hr.). 204 7 | Page users, desired turnover levels and appropriate enforcement. Also, as a parking zone or management district reaches 85% occupancy, the economics of demand (and equipment costs) make it easier to transition that area to paid parking (meter or permit zone), as opposed to an approach that is simply block by block. V. INTEGRATED PARKING MANAGEMENT The third issue is the relationship of on and off-street parking and the 85% Rule, particularly for commercial districts. There is an adage in the parking industry that states “on-street parking is a finite supply?” Theoretically, an on-street supply could reach a point where the entire supply exceeds 85% occupancy (see above example of Leavenworth, WA). It is at this point that a parking management plan needs to ensure that in implementing strategies to create a 15% buffer within the supply (e.g., reducing time stays, enhanced enforcement and/or pricing) that the overall number of trips to the commercial area is not reduced. It would be counterproductive to price parking to maintain a specific “buffer” only to find that fewer customers are coming downtown. To achieve this, the 85% Rule is most powerful when applied to an “integrated access system” that grows trip capacity in a downtown through maximizing turnover on-street (based on customer need), adding more customer trips into the off-street system and enhancing other access options (transit, bike, walk and rideshare) for employees and customers. To achieve this, downtowns must integrate management of their off-street supplies into the overall parking management equation. Where cities own off-street supply (lots and garages), this may be easier. In cities that have little control of the off- street system, then partnerships and shared use arrangements with private stakeholders is critical. A 2006 paper on parking guidance systems noted that any successful strategy for effective parking management needs to understand that: • Increased rates on-street should be correlated to lower cost options off-street. • If higher and variable “premium” rates on-street are employed to manage supply availability, then options must be in place off-street or in other modes for customers who won’t or can’t afford the on-street premium. 7 VI. SUMMARY The 85% Rule is an operating principle and industry-based best practices management tool for coordinating a parking supply and increasing trip capacity (within the supply itself or in tandem with other modes). When occupancies routinely reach 85% in the peak hour, more intensive and aggressive parking management strategies are called for to assist patrons in finding available parking. The 85% Rule standard will facilitate a City's and community's ability to make reasonable and effective decisions 7 See: Ingenieurgruppe IVV GmbH & Co. KG, Parking Guidance System for Downtown Seattle, Conceptual Framework (October 2006), page 5. 205 8 | Page regarding time stays, enforcement and other decisions related to capacity management. The 85% Rule is an objective standard that supports priorities for parking – getting the right car to the right space. 206 Peer Cities Why is this a peer city?RPPD Occupancy rate New RPPD requirements for establishment Establishment Fees Permits Nonresidents?Other Recommendations First vehicle: Free. Second vehicle: $15. Third: $40. Fourth: $100. Fifth: $200. Commuter permit: $40 If capacity after RPPD, permits for businesses on first- come basis -- if permits sold do not comprise 70% of available spaces, commuter permits may be sold up to 70% occupancy. The highest number of commuter permits ever issued as of Sep 2017 was only 31. The fee for number of permits per household increases per vehicle. Graduated fine structure: First violation: Warning. Second: $10. Third: $25. Fourth+: $50. 600-unit apartment building with inadequate parking led to first establishment of RPPD; also cause for disenfranchisment of non-owner residents (students) We should not emulate their minimum size requirement; 5 houses is not enough. Issue RPPDs with acknowledgement of the right of the public to use of streets; there is no right to park in front of your house. In Helena, "people with driveways and garages still buy a permit to make sure no one parks in front of their house". Sometimes owners cannot be contacted; give priority to residents in establishment of a district.Removed old RPPDs in 2014 b/c of disinterestOnly in type B, or monthly passes for employees of businesses located in Type A districts2/household; 2 guest passes/household Fort Collins, CO (pop. 164,000) Boulder, CO (pop. 108,000) Corvallis, OR (pop. 57,000) Consider adopting a similar graduated permit fee (or limit to number of vehicles that a residence can obtain an RPP for) and graduated fine structure. Consider provding commuter/employee permits if space allows after establishment of RPPD. Tacoma WA (pop. 211,000) Helena (pop. 31,000) Growing Western College/Tourist town 2-hr limited parking 8-5 M-F 70% full (residents or non) Petition of 10 residents of neighborhood; vote of 51% of all owners (non-owner residents not eligible) Petition of 50% of residents affected by new building activity; zoned residential area. Owners will be contacted for final decision. Type A (timed) zones are for blocks with mixed residential/commerical use. Type B (exclusive) for all other zones.N/A Two types: A: 2 hr parking except residents; B: residents only Helena has one of the oldest RPPD programs in the state (begun in 1983). In 2014, the city found that many of the older districts held relatively few permit holders, and changed their policies to begin decommissioning existing districts if lack of popular demand was not found. However, the City employs many policies that do not follow "best practices" (e.g. it has RPPDs in mixed-use districts, and exclusive use on a single block face). $100 processing, sign intallation = $2.25/ft None No fee Madison WI (pop. 252,000) Petition of 51% of all properties, with one signature from either a tenant or owner. Petition shall provide map of proposed boundaries. Minimum district size: 10 block faces. Then vote (1 vote/property of tenent or owner) (postcard mailing). Proposed districts downtown to be reviewed by Parking Petition of 25 adult residents of proposed zone or independent study by city manager (can be 2 blocks). 4 spaces per block face to be for commuters; taken away after if not applied for. Commuter permit money goes back into program. City manager presents studies to Transportation Advisory Board; then public hearing.60% during 8-5 75% occupied Yes, 3. Timed-limited parking (2 hrs), M-F, 8-5. Time restricted areas, with 3 different permit levels, as determined by individual neighborhood needs (see: Permits) College town with small downtown area and very limited parking Two types of district: A: 2-hr Parking; B: half the block is exclusive for residents; other half, no restrictions 51%+ occupied by commuters Block must be 51%+ residential. 51% residents must be petitioned & in favor Growing West (Coast) College town. Our consultant, Rick Williams, refered us to examine their policies. Growing Western College/Tourist town Consider providing quarterly commuter/business permits after initial establishment of new RPPD requirements -- if capacity allows.permit not a guarantee of space Offer first permit for free/discounted rate to low-income residents A permit is not a guarantee of a space; instead, it favors a resident's ability to park somewhere. However, Madison has more parking garages and lots than Bozeman, and public transport is more available -- for this reason, the strategy of issuing more permits than available spaces to discourage ownership of multiple vehicles may not be appropriate until more public transport/public lots are introduced. Consider similar process for formation and citizen notification of new districtpermit not a guarantee of space No Fee Issue more permits than spaces available, sometimes 2-3 times more. Permits specific to owner and vehicle; a new vehicle requires a new permit. permit not a guarantee of space We were referred to Tacoma by our consultant, Rick Williams. Tacoma's RPPD policies are among the most detailed and thought out that we have come across. Home to several universities and a tourist destination, this greater-Seattle city is not dissimilar from Bozeman. time-limited to two hours for non-residents; parking enforcement 8-6, limited police enforcement 6-8. (24 hours) more than 75% occupied for more than 3 hours (35% commuter) "approval by 60% of property residents to create zone". Decommission by vote of 50% of property owners. " Minimum zone size of 4 contiguous block faces [i.e. in a straight line] or 1100 linear curb ft.None $60/first &2nd vehicle, third $120, 4th $180. 10 Guest passes for 24 hrs available. Additional $1/pass time-limited permits for first vehicle available for discounted rate for "Residents who qualify for other low income programs--TANF, WIC, LIHEAP, SSI, SNAP, etc" Residents still must move car every 48 hours. Commuter permit -$100/Quarter; Business in NPP Zone -- Employee = $75/year. Residents get 2 two-week guest permits, and one 24-hr visitor tag; no more than 4/property. 3 types of NPP permits available: A: Residents beyond time restrictionB: Commuter – Non residents can park in a designated zone area (assigned block) beyond time restrictionC: Business Employee – Up to 3 full-time employees of a business establishment (not a business in a home) in a residential zone can park in a designated area (block), or more than by 3 by City ordinance. 3/address; by car None 207 Why not considered?RPPD Occupancy rate New RPPD Requirements for Establishment Establishment Fees Permits Nonresidents?Other Recommendations $50, must have resided in zone for 5 months, special permits issued to HS students in area by high schoolN/A Determination of City Engineer and vote by City Council $57.01 application fee. $28.50/vehicle, no limit N/A Time-limited to one or two hours This college-town tourist city is worth considering in comparison to us, but geographical distance placed it as 7th for our 6 peer cities Exclusive use on designated RPP block. 60%, of which 25% commuter Any single residential block may petition for RPPD status. "Evident support" of residents by petition required. Every household must be contacted or documented 3 attempts to contact. Survey for occupancy conducted, then Traffic Engineer conducts safety survey. Parking Manager makes recommendation to City Portland ME (pop. 67,000) Houston, TX Much larger Idaho Falls, ID (pop. 60,000) Parking control split between City and private contractor Residents of downtown exempt from parking lot, not from meters Casper, WY (pop. 60,000)No RPPD No, "plenty of on-street parking" $15 (1/driver) Let's keep an eye on Bend as they develop their plans. Max 4 Visitor permits for $28.5/permit; 2 service provider permits $28.50/permit; 100 1-day permits; $1.14/household We might also consider limiting the number of permits that a resident may have. Portland ME's program is not initiated by resident petition, but instead by determination of the City Engineer as to need, and then vote of City Council. The long-term residential requirements would be a burden on our citizens for their first five months in town. Bend, OR (pop. 91,000)RPPD not yet established Proposed. Minimum 10 block faces, or 1,500 ft. ; petition by 60% of residents/owners in favor Downtown public parking lots managed by semi-private "Downtown Idaho Falls" entity Idaho Falls lost a lot of parking and City planning control by contracting management of parking lots to a private company 208 time-limited parking. Permit hours available. Portland OR recently got in trouble for issuing fewer permits to residents of apartment buildings than to residents of homes. We should ensure that every resident of Bozeman has equal access to Parking Permits. time-limited Area Parking Permit District for residents and workers; varying hours by district 75% occupied, 25% by commuters Neighborhood association or business district association; City Traffic Engineer must agree on need-- or, petition of 50% of addresses within area to neighborhood/bda association, including map n/a "complimentary permit hours" available to res. Permit holders -- e.g. "99 free hours/days to use for parties, funerals, service calls, or other needs" Some districts 2/household, others none Vancouver has a great website explaining it's RPPD to citizens; we should strive to emulate that. It also offers a free permit to low-income citizens.Vancouver, BC Much larger; Canadian Both resident-only and time-limited zones. Even Resident-Only zones incorporate meters for non-resident parking availability. $39.72 CAD/year most districts; downtown is $378/year by the Market; $79.45/year outside the Market Portland OR (pop. 640,000) Portland is a much bigger community than Bozeman 209 city of Boulder, colorado. (2014,Oct.). Access Management and Parking strategies; Bast PracticesDocumentation. Retrieved from: httos://www-lson, s. G., & Mulley ,c.12014). Pad<ing: lssues and poticies. Emerald Group Publishing'Marsden, G. (2006). The evidence base for parking policies-a review' Tnnsport policy, 13(61' 447457 'Rick Wllliams Consulting .lZOtT,August 24). City Of Bend citywtde parking study: Residentiol porkingpermit zone progroms. Retrieved from :l2}Lg,March L4l. C¡ty of Tacoma: Technicol memorondum: Fromework for o residentiol porkingpermit program. Retrieved from:http://cms.cityoftacoma.orglPublicWorks/Engineering/Parking/Resldentlal%20Permit%20Program%203-14-13.Pdfshoup, D. (20171. The high cost of free parking: lJpdated edition. Routledge'Sofesbee Group. (2017,Sept. 21). Memorandum to the City of Boutder - Neighborhood porking permlt(npp) progrom updote. Retrieved from: https://www-static.bouldercolorado'gov/docs/10-09-2017-TAB-Age nd a-6-N PP-Update-l- 2Ot7 LOO3tLl9'pdfvan ommeren, J., de Groote, J., & Mingardo, G. (2014). Residentialparking permits and parkingsupply. Regionat Science and lJrban Economics, 45' 3344'210