Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-22 Public Comment - L. Semones - attention to The Transportation Board, Mike Veselik and City Manager J. MihelichFrom:Linda Semones To:Agenda Subject:attention to: The Transportation Board, Mike Veselik and City Manager J.Mehelich Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 7:38:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. April 26, 2022 Dear members of the City of BozemanTransportation Board, After reading Resolution 2022-03 Appendix A to be discussed as an action item at your meeting on April 27 of this week, I was left with some questions and concerns. 1. How does this Appendix A fit into the Ordinance Sec. 36.04.604. - Parking benefit zone regulations? The Appendix is labeled Section I. Will it replace section I of the current ordinances contained in 36.04.604 of the Municipal Code? Section I of Ordinance Sec. 36.04.604 reads as follows: I.The parking commission may authorize the sale of monthly parking permits to persons that do not reside within a parking benefit zone, depending on the level of parking occupancy within the parking benefit zone. The parking commission may determine the number of non-resident parking permits based on established administrative rules for parking occupancy within the parking benefit zone. The Appendix and the Municipal Code do not seem to be especially similar in content. Could you please clarify exactly where the Appendix will be inserted? 2. Section J of the Municipal Code is very important, and was carefully inserted into the code to protect the original intent of the Parking Benefit District formation. Section J describes the reason for the word “benefit” in the phrase Parking Benefit District. In his popularly quoted paper, UCLA Professor Donald Shoup suggests that part of the revenues generated by these districts should be returned to the parking district for public improvements and services. The actual benefit would be determined in consultation with the people of the district. This is how the concept was promoted to the citizens of Bozeman, and therefore how it should be applied. I thank you for maintaining this part of the code. The city has discussed how it could be used for many actions, including lowering the cost of a permit for residents of the zone, or providing funds for traffic calming in the zone. These would be wonderful benefits. 3. Now to the heart of the possible confusion in the Appendix. First of all, the fact that both the Transportation Board and the residents of an area may propose, amend and dissolve a Parking Benefit Zone is equitable and inclusive of our community. Thank you for this foresight in writing the Municipal Code to include all residents. My question concerning this section is as follows. In the Appendix, there is the equivalent of 1 property=1 resident. What does this mean? This equivalency is not included in the Municipal Code, and it may be more confusing than helpful. For example, If a neighborhood volunteer is going door to door to collect signatures to initiate, amend, or dissolve a Parking Benefit Zone, they might go to a building that contains a group of apartments, 5 or less listed numerically as apt A,B,C,D. If one property = 1 resident, does that mean that the volunteer can collect one signature and that signature will then count for the entire group of apartments? Or will the city be waiting for the property owner to weigh in after the mail notification is sent? Will the owner of the property be expected to communicate with the renters for a consensus? The implication of the Municipal Code seems to be that each resident will be able to sign for their rental address. Is this the case? Or will there be a process wherein the owner, and all the residents can sign the petition, yeah or nay, and the majority vote will count? This process could become cumbersome if not defined clearly. It is my belief that the intent of the Municipal Code was to allow each resident one vote. But that may not be the case according to how the Appendix is written. A second scenario might be the following. A volunteer goes to a duplex or triplex that is addressed as A,B,C units. This is not an apartment building. Is this considered one property since the three units technically have one owner? How would those signatures be tallied? A third scenario might be attached condos, each of which is privately owned and has a distinct physical address, but there is an HOA controlling the insurance and uses of the land surrounding the buildings. Does the HOA get 1 vote, or does each of the residents get a vote, including husband, wife or partner? It seems that the 1 property=1 resident phrase in the Appendix might cause some confusion in interpretation, and needs to be carefully reunited to the intent of the Municipal Code, which was that each resident would get a vote by signing the petition. But again, how will the city tell when the 60% of residents has been reached? 60% of properties might be easier to determine, but would not meet the inclusive intent of the original Ordinance. One option I can think of would be that the volunteer would collect the signatures from each resident of a multi-residence and the city would then have to tally the majority vote. Would this not be very cumbersome on all? . 1. Also, would there be a verification process for the signatures collected? I am left confused, and suggest that the petition process might need refining. I thank you for your hard work on this recommendation, realizing that this is a complicated issue. Thank you for considering these questions and concerns. Linda Semones 404 S Church Ave. Bozeman I am a member of the Historic Preservation Board. I also attend the Inter Neighborhood Council meetings. I am making this public comment as a private citizen.