Dear Commissioners and Mayor Ward,

I'm writing in reference to the new report on downtown parking. There are some points that need to be made. I'm going to draft this point-by-point with hopes that some might reply to each.

1. The report highlights that garage utilization increased by 31%, but doesn't mention that most downtown employees are now parking in the garage, and that students park their cars in the garage for entire semesters. How much of that 31% increase includes employees and students?

2. The report (much like the SP+ data) shows downtown's peak hours at night. The Downtown Advisory Board recommended changing the hours of paid parking to coincide with peak hours, but the City has said it's not possible due to intoxicated folks harassing parking ambassadors. The City is indirectly encouraging drinking and driving with these measures, and my only question here is why?

3. The report highlights that 90% of all transactions were collected via mobile pay, but fails to highlight that mobile pay is the only “reasonable” form of payment. If a customer doesn't want to use the app, they have to enter a good amount of info into the kiosk. Some of that info would require a walk back to the car to get one's tag and zone number. Given that inconvenience, it stands to reason that 90% of the transactions are app based. Why highlight it as if it's an accomplishment?

4. “Parking space turnover in the downtown core has increased and parking spaces are easier to find.” This statement is void of data. Please refer back to point 1. It only stands to reason that employees parking in the garage has created more turnover on the streets. Do we have data that shows the increase in relation to the increase of employee/student passes for the garage?

5. The report mentions a 3% rise in sales tax in the area, but fails to mention where it comes from. Restaurants, bars, and retail (barely) aren't the only generators of sales tax downtown. Much of those dollars also stem from property sales/rentals. Can we please be more specific here?

6. The report highlights a 7% increase in those who are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with parking conditions. If you add the respondents who are “satisifed” or “very satisfied,” it accounts for only 16.1% of the respondents, yet those “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” account for 66.6% of the respondents. What are your thoughts about celebrating a 7% increase while the vast majority of respondents remain dissatisfied? Please keep in mind that all respondents are our customers.

7. Page 1 of the Parking Snapshot shows that only $114,499 was collected by street parking over ¾ of a year. The data does not show if this is what the city netted or if this was the total before giving Passport Parking their 50% (on average) cut. A reminder that Passport makes .35 per transaction in both the .25 and .50 areas. Did the city make 114k or 57k? And is either value worth the harm it's doing to downtown businesses during the day? (Please be sure to reply to this one.)

8. And lastly, it doesn't seem that the recommendation at the end “took away” any of the “key takeaways from the parking survey”. The key takeaways include: “The payment app is challenging for many users”, “a majority of respondents feel that parking in downtown is priced too high, which is seen as a disadvantage for downtown businesses”, and “many feel that downtown needs more free parking to encourage visitors to come downtown, both on-street and in the parking garage.” Meanwhile, the recommendation is to: “continue monitoring parking operations and to make adjustments as needed to facilitate the user experience” and “provide annual reports to the city commission.” Please explain why the recommendation is void of anything listed in the key takeaways.

Many thanks for your time and I'll hope for a detailed reply to each of the points and questions above.

Best, 

Andrew Schaer