Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/11/2004 - PARKING AMENDMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC CODEDATE: August 11, 2004 STAFF: Randy Hensley/ Don Bachman/Ron Phillips STUDY SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Parking Amendments to the Traffic Code. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Parking Services staff intends to bring four Traffic Code amendments to the City Council for adoption in the near future. Staff is requesting Council’s response to the following questions: 1. Does the City Council have concerns or issues that need to be addressed prior to bringing these items forward? 2. Is the City Council ready to consider the recommended Code changes at a regular City Council meeting? BACKGROUND The purpose of this study session item is to present and discuss four proposed changes to the Fort Collins Traffic Code that staff is recommending to the City Council for adoption. The four recommended amendments will: a) Allow official Parking Services vehicles to be exempt from the parking requirements of the Traffic Code while in the performance of enforcement duties (Exemptions for Parking Services Vehicle); b) Authorize the impoundment of vehicles that have previously been immobilized if arrangements for release have not been made within 72 hours of the immobilization (Timely Impoundment); c) Make failure to pay parking fees in City operated pay parking facilities a violation of the Code, and establish a process for payment at a later time within 48 hours (Failure to Pay); d) Implement a rule that defines how long a vehicle must remain away from a timed parking area once it leaves that area before it may return (Time Limit Amendment to Block Ordinance). The City completed and approved the Downtown Strategic Plan in February of 2004. The Downtown Strategic Plan called for several parking changes, including making downtown friendlier August 11, 2004 Page 2 to customers and visitors, promoting on-street parking space turnover, and increasing long-term parking options for downtown employees. One of the specific tools called for in the Plan is “enhanced enforcement”, which is needed to insure that long-term parkers do not dominate short- term spaces and deprive customers and visitors of a place to park. The four Traffic Code amendments are needed to assist Parking Services in the performance of its duties in the area of enhanced enforcement, and the realization of the goals of the Downtown Strategic Plan. A complete description of each amendment follows. Exemptions for Parking Services Vehicle (Section 107(5)) The first amendment is needed in order for parking enforcement officers to do their jobs effectively. The amendment would allow a Parking Services vehicle to park in an otherwise restricted area, such as a loading zone or red curb, while the parking officer is in the process of enforcement activities. All Parking Services vehicles are equipped with flashing yellow warning lights which would be activated while the vehicle is parked in the restricted area. Timely Impoundment (Sections 1801(4) and (6)) The second amendment allows Parking Services to impound, or remove, a vehicle that has previously been immobilized (booted), but for which arrangements to remove the vehicle by the vehicle’s owner or responsible party have not been made within 72 hours of immobilization. This change is needed because an immobilized vehicle that is not removed will impede traffic and/or occupy a parking space that could be used by other parkers. The 72-hour time period will not include weekends or holidays, thus insuring that the Parking Services office is open and available to the public for three full business days. There is also a minor amendment to this section of the Code which clarifies that it is a misdemeanor to tamper with or attempt to remove an immobilization device that has been placed on a vehicle by the City. Non-payment of Pay Parking (Section 1227) The third amendment requires that people who park in a City-operated pay parking facility must pay for their parking. Under this amendment, if payment is not made, it will be a violation of the City Traffic Code and the offense can be treated like any other parking ticket. This change is needed because some parkers will attempt to leave the pay parking facility claiming that they have no funds with which to pay. The City’s current policy is to allow these people to leave the facility because requiring them to go somewhere else to obtain funds would disrupt operations in the facility. This change provides for a written promise to pay, and gives the person signing the promise-to-pay up to 48 hours to return with payment. Time Limit Amendment to the Block Ordinance (Section 1204(6)) The fourth amendment is designed to help address the problem caused by long-term parkers who inappropriately park in short-term spaces. Currently, the Traffic Code includes a block ordinance worded as follows: No person shall park or direct another person to park a vehicle in a block face or a public parking lot for a period in excess of any time restriction established for parking in the block face or public parking. (A “block face” is defined as all the parking between two intersections.) August 11, 2004 Page 3 The problem with the existing block ordinance is that it includes no reference to a time limit. In other words, when a vehicle leaves a block or lot, how long must that vehicle stay away before it can return to the same block or lot? In the absence of an explicit time limit, the Code has been interpreted by the City Attorney’s Office to mean “for the remainder of the enforcement day.” The new language being proposed to amend the existing block ordinance includes a four-hour rule, so that when a vehicle leaves a block or lot, it would not be able to return for a period of four hours. This time limit is the amount needed to insure that long- term parkers do not dominate short-term parking spaces. Note: City Council may have heard some discussion of the so-called “500-foot rule”, but staff is no longer proposing to implement a 500-foot rule. The intent of a 500-foot rule is very similar to the intent of the existing block ordinance. If a 500-foot rule had been implemented, it would have required vehicles to move at least 500 feet before parking again. The existing block ordinance requires that vehicles move off the block before parking again. The intent in each case is to promote parking turnover in the interest of customers and visitors. A third method of accomplishing this intent is the “district” rule, which defines a district or an area on a map which vehicles must leave when their time is up. Many cities use some form of a “block rule,” a “500-foot-rule,” or a “district rule” to prevent long-term parkers from moving short distances in order to subvert the turnover objective. Parking Services staff believes that the existing block ordinance is sufficient to accomplish the objectives of the Downtown Strategic Plan if a time limit is added to it, and therefore a “500-foot rule” no longer needs to be considered. Public Process and Support Over the past eighteen months, the Parking Services Division has conducted extensive outreach, marketing and education about the objectives of the Downtown Strategic Plan and the tools that are being implemented to reach those objectives. These efforts have included public open houses, mailings, flyers distributed to all downtown businesses, meetings with the Boards of Directors of the DDA and DBA, three breakfast meetings for businesses, meetings at specific places of business, warnings and informational brochures included with certain parking citations, and on-street talks with individuals, as well as numerous phone calls and letters to individuals. The proposed Traffic Code amendments have been approved by the Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch of the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Boards of both the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) have adopted resolutions supporting enhanced enforcement, and more recently (June, 2004), adopted specific motions supporting language that would implement a “500-foot-rule”. Even though staff is no longer proposing a “500-foot rule”, the minutes from the DBA and the DDA have been included in City Council’s packet to show support for the intent behind a “500-foot rule,” which is the same as the intent behind the block ordinance. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Board recommends approval of the Downtown Strategic Plan, including the parking recommendations. August 11, 2004 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Text of proposed Traffic Code amendments. 2. Downtown Business Association minutes. 3. Downtown Development Authority minutes. 4. An Explanation of Parking Issues in Response to Questions from Mayor Martinez and Council Member Roy, dated June 8, updated August 2. Proposed changes to the City of Fort Collins Traffic Code relating to Parking: Section 107 (5) (5) In addition to the foregoing provisions of this Section, the parking requirements of this Traffic Code shall not apply to the driver of a City motor vehicle using camera radar to detect speeding violations under Section 1106 or to the driver of a Parking Services vehicle in the course of his or her official duties of enforcing parking regulations under Part 12 of this Traffic Code or to the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, provided that such vehicles, at the time they parked, are being used by law enforcement or emergency services personnel in the performance of their official duties. Further, nothing in this paragraph shall relieve such drivers from the duty to park their vehicles with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall this paragraph protect such drivers from the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others. Section 1801 (4) If the owner of a vehicle does not respond to a notice sent to him or her by the Clerk of the Court or Municipal Court Clerk’s Office pursuant to this Traffic Code and any Parking Services personnel, code enforcement officer, community service officer or police officer finds such vehicle standing upon any portion of a street or highway right-of-way or other public property within the City, then such officer is authorized to immobilize such vehicle by installing on or attaching to such vehicle a device designed to restrict the normal movement of the vehicle, provided that such personnel or officer shall attach to the vehicle a notice advising the owner, driver or person in charge of the vehicle that the vehicle was immobilized due to the failure to respond to a notice regarding illegal parking and that release from such immobilization may be obtained contacting the Office of Parking Services or Office of Police Services and arranging for payment of all fines or other penalties applicable to such vehicle, including the charge established for immobilizing the vehicle and arranging for a trial before the Parking Services Referee. Arrangements for release must be made within 72 hours of immobilization. If no arrangements are made within that time period, the vehicle may be impounded. (5) No vehicle which has been immobilized pursuant to this Section shall be moved by any person without first obtaining a release from such immobilization from the Office of Parking Services, nor shall any person deface, injure, tamper with or open, or willfully break, destroy or impair the usefulness of any immobilization device attached to a vehicle pursuant to this Section or remove or attempt to remove said device from such vehicle. (6) Any person who violates section 1801(5) above is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable under Section 1-15(a) of the City Code. Section 1227. Failure to pay parking structure or surface lot fees. A person shall not take or drive a vehicle out of a city operated parking structure or surface lot without paying the assessed parking fee. If the person cannot pay the fee at the time of exiting the structure or surface lot, said person shall sign a written promise to return within 48 hours to pay said fee. It is unlawful for a person to fail to return and fail to pay the parking fee. After 48 hours, notice of the failure to pay violation shall be mailed to the registered owner of the offending vehicle pursuant to 1209(2). Failure to thereafter pay the parking fee and the fine for the failure to pay violation may subject the vehicle to the immobilization and impoundment pursuant to Part 18 of this Traffic Code. Section 1204 (6) No person shall park or direct another person to park a vehicle in a block face or a public parking lot for a period in excess of any time restriction established for parking in the block face or public parking. Unless permission from the Parking Services Manager or designee has been granted, no person shall, after having vacated a time restricted parking space in a lot or block face, return and park or direct another person to return and park the same vehicle in the same lot or block face within a four hour period thereafter, regardless of whether or not the maximum time restriction has elapsed. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING Downtown Business Association MINUTES May 12, 2004 REGULAR MEETING The Board of Directors of the Downtown Business Association met in regular session on May 12, 2004 at the Home State Bank building, located at 303 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 PRESENT David Zamzow, President Jeff Nuttall, Vice President Kevin Jones, Secretary Laura Bremer, Treasurer Ed Stoner Ted Devitt Alex Cooke Debbie Reider Steve Taylor Rich Harter Darin Attebery Lee Swanson ABSENT Anita Olin STAFF David Short, Executive Director Amanda Miller Linda Gula GUESTS Chip Steiner, Ron Phillips, Randy Hensley, Bruce Hendee, Gordon Mckinney, and Lisa Malmquist CALL TO ORDER David Zamzow called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. APPROVAL OF Steve Taylor moved to approve the minutes of April 14, 2004, as written. MINUTES Seconded by Jeff Nuttall and passed unanimously. NEW PARKING CODE David Zamzow introduced Randy Hensley and Ron Phillips from the City of Fort Collins. Randy Hensley presented an overview of the Enhanced Enforcement Program. He stated he is looking for a re-commitment from the Board for the Program. The objective of the program is to get compliance. He noted two indicators that have occurred since the program has been in place. 1. Immediately after the program was in place, there was a significant increase in sales of permit parking in every one of the parking facilities. That is important because the purpose of the program is to encourage long term parkers to get off the street. 2. There was a dramatic spike in the number of bootable vehicles. Because of the new technology, it is now easier to track bootable vehicles. Randy Hensley handed out the letter that was sent to over 1,000 businesses that outlined the Downtown Parking Cooperative. He noted he had few responses and is now in the process of contacting businesses to talk to them directly. He also handed out the proposed new traffic code language on “parking on the same block” (the 500’ rule). Language in the existing code is unenforceable because of the way it is written. DBA MINUTES PAGE 2 Questions: David Short asked if there is a rush to implement these more aggressive actions. He asked if they could be initiated but not enforced. Randy Hensley stated there is a timeliness issue associated with it. They have done a campaign and brochure and there is momentum right now, they need to proceed while it is still fresh. Debbie Reider stated she had no problem with implementation and thinks that parking has improved because of the perception of the 500’ rule being in place. Ron Phillips talked about the “woops” warning ticket that is a zero amount ticket that also gives information about the enforcement program. Steve Taylor expressed concern about the communication piece. He stated we don’t want our guests to perceive it as unfriendly. He asked if there is a way to separate the 500’ violation from the regular parking regulation. Could we set up a 2 or 3 hour period for the 500’ violation. Businesses work downtown and come and go. This is not only about shoppers it is about business people too. Maybe we could allow 2 “woops” tickets. Lee Swanson stated aside from the 500’ rule, people don’t’ know where to park or how long they can park. How can we relay this information. There has to be some element of education. Randy Hensley stated other entities do not put this information on signs. They educate by the “Woops” tickets. Darin Atteberry stated we need to meet the needs of businesses and feels Council will listen to the business community on 500’rule. Jeff Nuttall asked what % of accuracy there is for repeat offenders. Randy Hensley stated it could be tracked with the data base. He mentioned that on Walnut Street they discovered about 50% of the cars are abusers. People move from one space to another. Ted Devitt stated it seems like they know where the big violators are and asked if it makes sense to do two different fine structures – one for the 500’ rule and one for other violators – is it possible to focus on areas where we know there are problems. Randy Hensley replied that he thought they could do this. The new language sets up a new fine structure. Ted Devitt also asked with the booting situation if there is anything businesses can do to get them moved. Randy Hensley stated that they are working to get booted cars off the street faster – they are proposing a code change to get them off the streets in 72 hours. Ed stoner stated he hears the fears but the enforcement program is working and he likes Steve Taylor’s idea of having warning tickets. Ed Stoner moved to endorse the new code stressing the 500’ rule rather than the block face terminology, in conjunction with allowing one “woops” ticket in 180 days for this particular violation. Seconded by Jeff Nuttall and passed unanimously. DDOOWWNNTTOOWWNN DDEEVVEELLOOPPMM EENNTT AAUUTTHHO ORRIITTYY RReegguullaarr D Diirreeccttoorrss '' MMeeeettiinng g KKiimm JJoorrddaa nn,, CChhaaiirr 222211--0055 2244 (WW)) BBiillll BBeerrtt sscchhyy,, CCoouu nncciill LLiiaaii ssoonn 449911-- 44772299 (WW)) LLiinnddaa GGuull aa,, SSttaaffff LLiiaaiissoonn 448844--22002200 (WW)) MMIINNUUTTEESS OO FF MMaayy 66,, 22000044 RRe egguullaarr MMee eettiinngg TThhee BBooaarrd d ooff DDiirree ccttoorrss ooff tthhee DDoowwnn ttoowwnn DDeevve ellooppmmeenntt AAuutthhoorriitty y mmeett iinn RReegguullaarr S Seessssiioonn aa tt 77::3300 aa..mm. . oonn MMaayy 66,, 22000044 i inn tthhee MMee eettiinngg RRooo omm aatt HHoomm ee SSttaattee B Baannkk llooccaa tteedd aatt 330 033 EEaasstt MMoouunnttaaiinn AAvveennuuee,, FFoorrtt CCoolll liinnss,, CCOO 8800552244.. PPRREESSEENNTT K Kiimm JJoorrddaa nn,, CChhaaiirr SStteevvee tta ayylloorr,, VVii ccee CChhaaiirr DDDDAA MMIINNUUTT EESS PPAAGGEE 22 MMrr.. WWoollf fee ssttaatteedd hhee lliikkees s tthhee iiddee aa ooff tthhee CCooooppeerraatt iivvee aanndd t thhaatt tthheerr ee nneeeeddss t too bbee eennffoorrcceemme enntt ttoo mmee aassuurree rrees suullttss.. MMrr.. BBeerrt tsscchhyy aasskk eedd iiff tthhe erree wwaass aa nnyy rreeaassoon n wwhhyy tthhee ccooooppeerraat tiivvee hhaass nnoott ttaakkeen n ooffff.. MM rr.. HHeennsslleeyy s sttaatteedd iitt mmaayy bbee t thhaatt ppeeoopp llee ddoonn’’tt uunnddeerrssttaa nndd iitt.. HHe e ssaaiidd hhee wwoouulldd bbe e mmaakkiinngg ffoollllooww--uup p ccaallllss tt oo bbuussiinnees ssseess iinn tt hhee nneexxtt f feeww wweeeekkss ttoo ttaallkk aabboouutt tthh ee ccooooppeerra attiivvee aaggaa iinn aanndd cciitteed d eexxaammppllee ss ooff wwhheer ree tthhee aapp pprrooaacchh cco ouulldd wwoorrkk . MMss.. JJoorrd daann ssttaattee dd iiff tthhee nnuummbbeerr oo An Explanation of Parking Issues in Response to Questions from Mayor Martinez and Council Member Roy June 8, 2004 [Updated August 3, 2004] PREFACE: These and other parking issues are scheduled for discussion at a Council Study Session on June 29, 2004 (now moved to August 11.) PURPOSE: This explanation will attempt to address the Mayor's question as clarified by Darin Atteberry, as well as Council Member Roy's issues. To restate these questions, Darin has stated that the Mayor wants to know if we have begun enforcement of the block. Council Member Roy's issues are: 1. He feels we need a three hour time limit on-street; and 2. He would like to see a change to the rule that prohibits a vehicle from moving back to the same block in the same day. NOTE: The Mayor's question concerning the block ordinance is closely related to Council Member Roy's second issue. The block ordinance does prohibit cars from moving back to the same block in the same day. I will explain later in this email how we are enforcing the block ordinance. Also, the block ordinance has been a part of the City Traffic Code for a number of years, but has not been enforceable without the capability of the technology we now are using. DEFINITION: A "block-face", or a "block" as it is commonly referred to, is defined in the Fort Collins Traffic Code as "a portion of a street or highway between two intersections, including all on-street parking within such boundaries." In a situation like College or Mountain, the block includes all the parking in the middle, as well as on both sides of the street. For other streets without center aisle parking, the block includes all parking on both sides of the street. THE SHORT ANSWERS: Yes, we are enforcing the block ordinance. Without it, or without something similar, it is much more difficult to achieve the parking goals of the Downtown businesses, and our efforts to preserve on-street parking for customers and visitors will be less successful. The three-hour time-limit proposal would make it easier for long-term parkers to park on-street and dominate parking resources, thus making it more difficult for customers and visitors to find a parking space. THE LONG ANSWERS: See below. BACKGROUND: Downtown has a variety of parking needs, from long-term, more than 2 hours (primarily Downtown employees); to short-term, 1-2 hours (primarily shoppers and diners); to very-short-term, 15-30 minutes for special situations such as near a clothing dry cleaners, copy store, pizza pick-up, etc. All of these needs must be balanced and managed to make Downtown parking work. If one of these needs begins to dominate parking resources, it causes problems and threatens the economic vitality and sustainability of Downtown. The last few years, we have had a situation where long-term parkers have dominated parking resources and it has been very frustrating to retail business owners in the Downtown. Explanation of Parking Issues Page 2 June 8, 2004 The Downtown Strategic Plan, which the City Council adopted in February 2004, addresses this imbalance by endorsing enhanced enforcement and supporting several important policies: 1. On-street parking should be primarily for customers and visitors to Downtown who usually have short-term needs of about 1-2 hours. 2. Long-term parkers should use long-term spaces. For employees, this would either be a permit in one of the parking structures or surface lots, or a free all-day parking spot around the periphery of the Downtown core. For shoppers and diners, this would be hourly parking in the parking structures, or one of the free all-day spaces around the periphery of Downtown. 3. Additional long-term parking should be created for Downtown employees through the Downtown Parking Cooperative. Also, lower-priced permit programs will make it easier for Downtown employees to purchase a permit. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND – SURVEY RESULTS: At the beginning of the Downtown Strategic Plan, an intercept survey was conducted with 500 parkers to determine their parking needs. Sixty percent of the respondents said they were Downtown to shop or eat. Twenty percent said they were Downtown to work. These are the two predominant groups that define parking needs. Sixty-seven percent of all survey respondents said 1-2 hours was satisfactory for their purposes. Of those who said they needed more than 2 hours to park, 65% were Downtown employees. THE PROBLEM: Too many on-street parking spaces are taken up by Downtown employees. Data collected during the Downtown Strategic Plan showed that, on average, one out of every five spaces in the Downtown core area is used by a long-term parker. More recent data found that on Walnut, 50% of the vehicles were simply moving from one space to another on the same block throughout the day. Anecdotally, we know that many employees and managers are not sympathetic to reserving on-street spaces for customers and visitors. In the Oak Street Plaza, some businesses have alarm clocks set to go off every two hours so employees can go out and move their cars. The manager and employees at one local restaurant pride themselves on taking up every space on-street right in front of their store. The employees at a new establishment are happy they are on a corner so they can move their cars back and forth from one street to another and effectively skirt the block ordinance. The "two-hour shuffle" has become a popular break- time activity for many Downtown employees. THE SOLUTION: If long-term parkers can be "incentivized" to park off-street, the inventory of usable spaces for customers and visitors will increase immediately by at least 20%, going a long ways toward solving the "perceived" parking problem Downtown. "Time limits" backed up by parking fines encourage people to move their vehicles, thus accomplishing our goal of promoting parking space turnover. "Time limits" also pose an inconvenience to long-term parkers, thus providing the incentive for them to park off-street. The policy of no fines for first-time citations helps us educate people while remaining friendly to customers and visitors. Escalating fines help us target repeat offenders. Enforcement of the block ordinance introduces just enough inconvenience to encourage long-term parkers to find more appropriate long-term parking spaces instead of parking on-street. Explanation of Parking Issues Page 3 June 8, 2004 SUPPORT: Both the Downtown Business Association and the Downtown Development Authority endorse and support the new enhanced enforcement program as recommended in the Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP), and the boards of both organizations have passed recent resolutions indicating this support. A majority of business owners and representatives who attended our recent outreach efforts also support this approach, as did the majority of the citizen Advisory Committee members who served during the public participation phase of the DSP. WHY A THREE-HOUR TIME LIMIT IS NOT EFFECTIVE: Our survey results indicate that most shoppers and diners don't need three hours, but most employees do. A three-hour time limit makes it easier for employees to park on street, depriving a customer or visitor of a place to park. While a minority of shoppers and diners would profit from a longer time limit, the longer time limit will actually make it more difficult for any shopper or diner to find that space in the first place. There are alternatives for the occasional shopper or diner who needs more than 2 hours – hourly rates in the parking structures. However, if we lengthen the on-street time limits out of deference to the minority, we will make it more difficult for the majority. It's a case where we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. THE BLOCK ORDINANCE AND HOW WE ENFORCE IT: First, it should be noted, as mentioned above, that the block ordinance is nothing new. It has been in the traffic code for years. The intent of the block ordinance is to encourage parking turnover so that more customers and visitors can park Downtown. It also creates an inconvenience for long-term parkers, thus encouraging them to find appropriate long-term spaces off-street or on the periphery. Without a block ordinance, or something like it, long-term parkers (employees) will dominate at least 20% of the on-street parking supply, thus limiting economic vitality and threatening economic sustainability in the Downtown area. In the past, we enforced time limits by manually chalking tires with physical chalk. When the enforcement officer came back after the time limit, if the chalk was still present, a citation would be issued. Manual chalking was easily undermined, and was less than totally effective. "Savvy" employees got off scott-free, while the innocent customer or visitor who happened to make a mistake was penalized. There are many methods people used to get rid of the chalk mark, including simply driving around or down the block. A literal interpretation of the block ordinance is that when a vehicle leaves a block, it cannot return to that same block for the remainder of the day. The ordinance does not address the issue of "coming and going and coming back again." (Administratively, we are not applying such a strict interpretation - more on this later.) When we used physical chalk, we could never tell if a vehicle left and returned because the chalk was gone once the vehicle drove a short distance. Many times, vehicles would simply pull out of a space and pull into another space down the block without even bothering to drive any distance at all. Other methods of removing the chalk made it even easier for long-term parkers to take up short-term customer spaces. When many Downtown employees engage in these practices, it effectively reduces the chance for a customer or visitor to find a place to park. With our new technology – hand-held computers and the license plate recognition system – we no longer rely on physical chalk. Now, we electronically chalk a vehicle by noting its license plate, the time, and the location (the block on which it is located). When the enforcement officer returns to the block after the time is up, the hand-held computer or license plate recognition system will alert the officer if the same vehicle is located on the same block. If so, it is issued a Explanation of Parking Issues Page 4 June 8, 2004 citation, which is a warning for first-time offenders. We engaged in an extensive education and marketing campaign when we switched enforcement methods. We did this to inform Downtown employees and businesses about our new practice. We gave out only warnings for two-weeks after the switch. We continue to give first-time warnings with a zero fine and educational brochures to all vehicles. WHY THE BLOCK ORDINANCE IS NEEDED (or something like it): Without the block ordinance or something like it, there are no options for us for enforcing time limits for long-term parkers under the Municipal Court rulings. If moving from one space to another on the same block after your time is up is legal, most Downtown employees will engage in this practice, and the Downtown parking problem will be as bad or worse than it was before we began enhanced enforcement. Also, the only deterrent available to enforcement would be to cite overtime vehicles that park in the very same space, and even those drivers could make a case that they left that space and came back to it. Many other communities have block ordinances in one form or another. A common tool used elsewhere, and which is currently being proposed by Parking Services, is the 500-foot rule with time-limit. [Note, updated August 3, 2004: Staff is no longer proposing the “500-foot rule”. See A.I.S. for additional information about this change.] Another tool is the district boundary with time-limit. In either case, vehicles would be required to move away a certain distance for a certain period of time before being allowed to return to the area of the original parking space. Parking Services will be proposing new ordinance language to replace the existing block rule because the existing rule is vague and ambiguous. It is also too strict, in that it requires vehicles that leave a space to remain away from that block for the rest of the day. As a result of the rule being too strict, Parking Services has administratively adopted a four-hour rule: that is, when you leave a space, if you stay away for four hours before returning to the same block, you will not receive a parking ticket. The four-hour rule still provides an incentive for long-term parkers to park off-street, but it is more reasonable for vehicles that have bona-fide reasons to return to an area. The new ordinance language proposed by Parking Services to replace the existing block ordinance also contains a four-hour rule. EXCEPTIONS: There are legitimate exceptions to the four-hour rule that must be considered. For example, a person buys an item at Ace Hardware, only to get home and find it's the wrong part. They need to return it and get the correct part. Another person drops off material to be copied, and the finished product is ready to be picked up in three hours. There are other examples. In order to address these situations, Parking Services is installing more very-short- term spaces – usually 15, 20 or 30 minutes depending on the needs of nearby businesses. Very- short-term spaces are enforced as written, meaning if it is a fifteen-minute spot, a citation will be issued if a vehicle remains longer than 15 minutes. However, these very-short-term spaces are exempt from the four-hour rule, so that a vehicle can return and use the fifteen-minute space without waiting four hours. In fact, the length of time that a vehicle is required to wait before returning to a very-short-term space is the length of the space itself. So, if a vehicle parks in a fifteen minute space and leaves, it must wait 15 minutes before returning. These types of spaces will promote business activity in areas where come-and-go traffic is common. Explanation of Parking Issues Page 5 June 8, 2004 For other cases where a vehicle receives a citation and the driver has a legitimate come-and-go explanation, there is an appeal process that can be used to explain the situation to a court referee. If the referee finds that the circumstances warrant, the citation can be dismissed. FEEDBACK and PROGRESS-TO-DATE: Parking Services has received many phone calls as a result of the new enhanced enforcement program. Invariably, people start out by claiming we are revenue-oriented, power-hungry bureaucrats and how could we be so stupid. After we explain the problem, of which most people outside Downtown are unaware, and how the solutions address the problem, most people grudgingly admit the merits of the program. Those few people that I have had no success with are either blatantly anti-government and feel that no government program is appropriate, or are steadfastly self-oriented and are unwilling to consider the big picture about what is good for Downtown as a whole. Out of the fifteen or so calls I have taken on this topic over the past two weeks, only one was from a customer, and that person ended up admitting after we had talked awhile that the program was making parking easier to find, but she just wished there was a way to do it without "heavy handed enforcement." The rest of the calls were from businesses, and many of those I have been able to work out something to address their concerns, such as the very-short-term parking spaces, or changing certain two-hour zones around the periphery of Downtown to unlimited parking time so that employees will have more alternatives. CONCLUSION: The parking problem is being addressed and parking availability is improving. Walnut Street is an excellent example. Three weeks ago, at 2:00 p.m. on any weekday, a parking space on Walnut would be hard to find, or one would open up and be filled immediately. Today, two weeks after our marketing and education campaign about the new way we enforce the block ordinance, there are generally two or three spaces open, waiting for customers. This is ideal. Industry standards and studies indicate that if occupancy is consistently above 90%, people get discouraged and stop trying. Anecdotally, we hear evidence of this all the time. It will take awhile for word of Downtown parking availability to get out in the community, but eventually customers will start coming back and Downtown will have a stronger, healthier economic base. But we must stay the course. If we give the streets back to Downtown employees, customers will not be able to compete for a parking space, and they will go elsewhere. With that said, it should be pointed out that Downtown employees are not the enemy, and we are not treating them that way. They are a legitimate and important part of the Downtown economy, and we need to provide parking for them. In fact, we are. Several parts of the Downtown Strategic Plan call for long-term parking solutions. We are working on those solutions and will not abandon our efforts to provide for Downtown employees. We just need to be clear that the on-street priority in the Downtown core has to be for customers and visitors, and if we fail at that objective, Downtown will not prosper as it should. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments, and don't forget that we will have an opportunity to address these issues in detail at the Council study session on June 29. Randy Hensley Transportation Parking & Budget Manager City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Explanation of Parking Issues Page 6 June 8, 2004 rhensley@fcgov.com (970) 416-2058 FAX (970) 221-6239 ff rreeqquueesst tss ffoorr ppee rrmmiittss aarre e iinnccrreeaass iinngg,, wwee n neeeedd ttoo mm aakkee ssuurree wwee h haavvee eennoouu gghh ppeerrmmiit tss (aanndd pp aarrkkiinngg)) f foorr eemmpplloo yyeeeess.. WWee nneeeedd ttoo bbee ccaarreeffu ull aabboouutt bbeeiinngg ttooo o mmiilliittaann tt.. MMrr.. HHeewwi itttt ssttaattee dd hhee ssuuppp poorrttss tthhee nneeww ccoodde e iimmmmeeddiiaa tteellyy.. YYo ouu hhaavvee tt oo hhaavvee aac cccoouunnttaabbii lliittyy aanndd ccoonnsse eqquueenncceess.. MMss.. BBrraay yttoonn ssttaatt eedd eemmppllooy yeerrss hhaavvee ttoo bbee lle eaaddeerrss ffoo rr ggeettttiinng g tthhee pprroo ggrraamm ttoo w woorrkk.. IItt iiss sshhooppppeerrss wwhhoo wwee nn eeeedd ttoo aac cccoommmmooddaatt ee.. SShhee ssu uggggeesstteedd tthhaatt ppeerrh haappss MMrr.. HHeewwiitttt oor r aannootthheerr b booaarrddmmeemmbb eerr ccoouulldd wwrriittee aa ssooaappbbooxx ttoo tthhee CC OOLLOORRAADDOOAAN N ffrroomm tthh ee bbuussiinnees sss ppeerrssppeecctti ivvee.. MMrr.. SSttrro ouudd ssttaattee dd tthhaatt wwe e nneeeedd aa ccoonnvveenniieen ntt ssuuppppllyy ooff ppaarrkki inngg.. MMrr.. SStteei inneerr ssttaatt eedd wwee nneee edd ssoommee cc oouunntteerr bba allaanncciinngg aanndd nnootteed d MMrr.. MMeeaa ddoorrss ccoommm meennttss ffrroomm aa ppa asstt mmeeeettii nngg tthhaatt e emmppllooyyeerrss aanndd eemmppl looyyeeeess aarr ee ““ccuussttoom meerrss”” ddooww nnttoowwnn ttooo o.. MMrr.. HHeewwi itttt mmoovveedd ttoo ssuuppppo orrtt tthhee pp rrooppoosseedd n neeww ccooddee wwoorrddiinngg a ass pprreesseenn tteedd.. SSeecco onnddeedd bbyy MMrr.. SSttrroou udd.. PPuubblliicc I Innppuutt –– MM rr.. DDaavviidd SShhoorrtt,, EE xxeeccuuttiivvee DDiirreeccttoorr ooff tthhee D Doowwnnttoowwnn BBuussiinneessss AAssssoocciiaatt iioonn,, ssttaatteedd tth haatt tthhee pp aarrkkiinngg cch haannggeess aarr ee wwoorrkkiinng g aanndd hhee bbeelliieevveess wwee jjuusstt nneeeedd ttoo g giivvee tthheemm mmoorree ttiimme e bbeeffoorree wwee ttaakkee a ann eevveenn mm oorree aaggggrre essssiivvee aapp pprrooaacchh.. MMrr.. TTaayyl loorr ssttaattee dd hhee ddooees s nnoott ffeeee ll ppaassssiioon naattee aabboouu tt tthhiiss aan ndd wwiillll nn oott ssuuppppoor rtt tthhee mmoo ttiioonn.. MMrr.. BBeerrt tsscchhyy ssttaa tteedd hhee wwo ouulldd lliikkee ttoo sseeee t thhee ccooooppee rraattiivvee wwo orrkk.. MMrr.. SSttrro ouudd ssaaiidd hhee wwoouulldd ssuuppppoorrtt tthhee mmoottiio onn bbuutt wwee nneeeedd ttoo ddeevveelloopp aa ssuuppppllyy ooff ppaarrkkii nngg aarreeaass aannd d ccoonncceenntt rraattee oonn a abbuusseerrss.. MMrr.. WWoollf fee ssttaatteedd hhee wwoouulld d ssuuppppoorrtt tthhee mmootti ioonn bbuutt ww ee nneeeedd mmo orree ddaattaa.. PPaasssseedd oonn aa 55--22 vvoottee - MMss.. JJoorr ddaann aanndd MMrr.. TTaayyll oorr vvoottiinn gg nnoo.. BBiillll B Beerrttsscchhyy MMaarryy BBrra ayyttoonn LLaarrrryy SSt trroouudd JJaacckk WWool lffee CCaarreeyy HHe ewwiitttt AABBSSEENNTT JJa assoonn MMeeaadd oorrss,, SSeeccr reettaarryy//TTrr eeaassuurreerr BBiillll SSeea arrss SSTTAAFFFF RRoob beerrtt SStteeii nneerr,, EExxeec cuuttiivvee DDii rreeccttoorr LLiinnddaa GGu ullaa LLuucciiaa LLi illeeyy,, CCoouu nnsseell GGuueessttss D Daarriinn AAtttt eebbeerrrryy,, A Allaann KKrrccmm aarriikk,, MMyyr rnnee WWaattrroo uuss,, DDaavviid d SShhoorrtt,, DDiicckk BBeeaar rddmmoorree,, HHaarroolldd S Soommmmeerrss,, DDaavviidd BBood dee aanndd AAll lleenn CCuurrtti iss.. CCAALLLL TTOO OO RRDDEERR MMss.. JJoorrddaann cc aalllleedd tthhe e mmeeeettiinngg ttoo oorrddeer r aatt 77::3300 aa..mm.. aannd d rroollll ccaa llll wwaass tta akkeenn.. AAPPPPRROOVVAALL// MMIINNUUTTEESS M Mrr.. TTaayylloo rr mmoovveedd t too aapppprroovv ee tthhee mmiin nuutteess ooff AApprriill 11,, 22000044.. SSee ccoonnddeedd bby y MMrr.. WWooll ffee aanndd ppaasssseedd uun naanniimmoouussll yy.. PPAARRKKIINNGG SS YYSSTTEEMM MMrr. . SStteeiinneerr iinnttrroodduuc ceedd MMrr.. RR aannddyy HHeenns slleeyy ffrroomm tthhee CCiitty y ooff FFoorrtt CCoolllliinnss ttoo ggiivvee aann UUPPDDAATTEE uup pddaattee oonn tthhee cchhaanng geess iinn tthh ee ppaarrkkiinng g ppoolliicciiee ss ddoowwnnttoow wnn.. HHee nnoo tteedd tthhaatt tthheerree hhaa ss bbee aa ssiiggnniiffiicca anntt iinnccrree aassee iinn ppe errmmiittss ppuu rrcchhaasseedd i inn tthhee ffii rrsstt tthhrreee e mmoonntthhss aanndd tthheerre e hhaass bbeeee nn aann iinnccrreeaassee iinn nnuummbbee rrss ooff vveeh hiicclleess tthh aatt hhaavvee b beeeenn bboooott eedd.. HHee h haannddeedd oouu tt ccooppiieess ooff tthhee lleetttteerr oou uttlliinniinngg tthhee DDoowwnnt toowwnn PPaarrkk iinngg CCooooppe erraattiivvee tt hhaatt hhaadd b beeeenn sseenntt ttoo bbuussiin neesssseess aann dd aallssoo aa hha annddoouutt oonn tthhee TTrraaf fffiicc ccooddee rreeggaarrddiin ngg ““ppaarrkkii nngg oonn tthhe e ssaammee bbll oocckk”” (tthhe e 550000’’ rruu llee)). HHee ssttaatteed d tthhee oolldd llaanngguuaagge e iiss uunneenn ffoorrcceeaabblle e.. MMrr.. HHeenns slleeyy ssttaatt eedd tthhaatt i itt iiss nnoott tthhee ccuusst toommeerrss wwhh oo aarree tthhe e pprroobblleemm ,bbuutt iitt iiss bbuussiinn eessss oowwnneerrss wwh hoossee eemmppll ooyyeeeess ppaar rkk aanndd mmoo vvee.. TThhee G GPPSS ssyyssttee mm ccaann tteel lll eexxaaccttll yy wwhheerree c caarrss aarree mmoovviin ngg (tthhee 22 hhoouurr sshhu uffffllee)).AA ffiirrsstt oof fffeennssee wwaa rrnniinngg wwiil lll bbee iissss uueedd.. BBooaarrdd QQu ueessttiioonnss:: MMrr.. TTaayyl loorr ssttaattee dd hhee wwoouul ldd lliikkee ss oommee nnuummbbe errss (ddaattaa )oonn hhooww mmaannyy ppeeoo ppllee aarree m moovviinngg tthheeiirr ccaar rss eevveerryy ttwwoo hhoouurrs s.. HHee ssttaa tteedd tthhaatt wwee ccaannnnoo tt bbee ttoooo rriigghhtteeoouu ss,, tthheerree aarree aa mmuullttiittuudde e ooff eexxccee ppttiioonnss,, w wee hhaavvee uu sseerrss wwhhoo aarree oowwnnee rrss aanndd eem mppllooyyeerrss.. MMrr.. HHeenns slleeyy ssttaatteedd hhe e ccoouulldd pp rroovviiddee dda attaa iiff nnee eeddeedd..