Next: Parking. We're focusing on two areas right now - pricing and neighborhood parking permits.

Staff presentation:…
Basically, parking isn't paying for itself (at least not the neighborhood permits), so the city is recommending higher prices to achieve cost recovery in 5 years.
We'll talk Neighborhood Parking Permits first. My notes:
Resident passes will go from $17 to $30 annually in 2022 and increase by $10 every year thereafter until “cost recovery is achieved”
Commuter permits will increase from $400/year to $420 in 2022 and increase by $20 every year until program pays for itself (2024)
NPP covers less than 50% of its cost, staff noted in January; the rest is subsidized by the city’s general fund
2018 expenses: $351,686
Vs. revenue: $203,460
NPP moving forward will adopt a "priority-based" approach in which neighborhoods are assessed for occupancy, trip generation and access to non-vehicular travel options. Pricing will be adjusted accordingly.
While that analysis is ongoing, no new neighborhoods will be able to apply for an NPP.
Meant to include this earlier, but guest passes for NPP are changing, too: Two 2-week passes included. Additional up to six two- week passes per year will be $15 per week to cover cost
The cost for this new approach is $85,000-$120,000 "for dedicated resources to collect and analyze data and develop outreach materials for the new program and policy, either in-house or through a consultant."
Also: Ongoing cost of $30,000-$50,000 in associated labor.
I should note this approach is the staff recommendation. Others were studied; this rose to the top.
Staff is also exploring the idea of a Transportation Wallet - discounts on bike share, bus, carshare, to be included in the cost of an NPP.
Now onto parking pricing, which is basically what you'll pay to park in all city spots/garages wherever they exist. (Mostly downtown and Uni Hill)
The proposed new strategy is Performance-based pricing
Entails “pricing of on-street parking by block face in existing paid districts based on typical peak occupancy, with paid public loading zones in the highest-demand areas and uniformly lower off-street pricing”
On-street prices going up from $1.25/hr to $1.50 per hour in the first year ($2.50 in the summertime at Chautauqua; will go up by $0.25)
On-street pricing will be tiered according to peak occupancy, ranging from $1.50-$3/hr “in the first few years” with annual increases. $5/hr max will be written into ordinance
Why $5/hr max? I asked. It's comparable to other cities of Boulder's size, according to consultants, and a nod to "economically sensitive stakeholders," staff told me.
But different and "more meaningful" benchmarks will be explored over the coming months/years. Like what RTD charges for a day pass (I assume to incentivize transit use)
Lowest-demand areas “which generally have difficulty attracting parkers at sustainable rates” $0.25- $0.50 below the Standard/Base Rate.

Highest-demand areas, on-street parking $0.75 to $1.50 higher than standard
Parking garage pricing will stay the same ($1.25/hr for the first 4 hours and $2.50/hr thereafter) but “graduated rate structure” will be eliminated. That means parking getting more expensive the longer you stay there.
An 8-hr parking session currently costs $15.00 and a 24 hour session costs $55.00.

Staff is still considering an automatic daily maximum for parking sessions that last longer than a TBD amount of time within a 24 hour period.
OK last area I forgot: Parking fines.
Staff suggesting upping the base rate that averages $15-$20 for most violations (I've gotten enough parking fines to dispute this.. mine are always $25!) and to charge more for things that impact safety, like parking in a bike lane.
Speaking of repeat parking violators, they'll be charged more for (up until their third offense)
So your 2nd will cost more than your 1st, and your 3rd more than your 2nd, but your 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. will be the same as your 3rd
There's a whole slide here with board feedback. Both TAB and Planning Board wanted a more aggressive approach.
There's also been discontent about what's NOT being proposed right now: Changes to Boulder's rules about how much parking is required for new development.
Transportation and climate folks are bummed bc they want a faster transition to greener modes of travel, and that won't happen if the city keeps reinforcing driving as the norm, they argue.
You can see this in TAB's feedback on pricing: "If Council is serious about reducing GHG emissions, it should look more seriously at using parking pricing as a foundational tool. If rates are raised high enough, they can encourage people out of their cars and into other modes."
(That's as presented by staff in the presentation.)
Staff delayed work on parking codes due to COVID-related reductions to planning staff. But that work will def happen in the future, they say.
These are first stpes toward the principles Boulder is going for:
1. Charge the right prices for on-street parking
2. Charge demand-based pricing for offstreet parking
3. Spend parking revenue to improve public services
4. Remove off-street parking requirements
5. Promote parking cash out employer programs
6. Use parking fines that increase with each successive offense
As you'll see (or maybe not) most of those are being pursued in this part of parking reform.

Of course, critics have said they're not being pursued to the degree needed (still too cheap, etc.)
Moving on to council qs. Already more interest than in the crime/policing strategy... although parking is certainly an area where council has more comfort/knowledge, so that makes some sense.
Brockett: I feel like I've been working on this since I was a wee lad on Planning Board.
He's on his second council term. That's how long shit takes in Boulder.
Ryan Schuchard from TAB is here to give that board's thoughts. "We have not voted on a resolution ... we've had quite a bit of dialogue."
Schuchard: "TAB would like to move more aggressively."
Schuchard: "If there's one thing that's worth council's attention today... Parking is a place to put cars, but beyond that it's one of the city's most powerful assets for climate action."
Schuchard: In the recent discussion on Boulder's climate goals, staff said action to date had been mostly shallow and the city needs to act with a lot greater urgency. I thought I saw council members mostly agreeing with that.
Parking is one of the few areas Boulder literally controls and can change overnight, Schurchard says. Driving is one of the biggest chunks of GHG.
Schuchard: "Parking is also a large amount of publicly owned real estate. ... It's not pre-destined that the public space we currently use to provide subsidized car storage" that it has to be used that way.
"If you were starting from scratch, would you use $50/sq ft real estate and give that away for free or nearly free?" Schuchard says.
"If you take a hard look at climate or equity," Schuchard says, and really want to make change, "you should expect it to look a lot like moving away from the status quo and not incrementally."
Don't expect professional staff to recommend radical change without policy direction from you, elected officials, Schuchard says.
"What a study is going to give you is this exact decision on your desk," he adds. "No need for modeling."
Wow. No uncertain terms there. Rarely that level of honesty and directness do we see in council chambers.
Weaver: "Thanks for that exhortation to do more."
Weaver: What would you do with the three recommendations staff has made tonight?
"Could we get a dollar figure?" Weaver asks. "Do you have any detail behind that, or is it just a general lean-in type of comment?"
Schuchard: $1,000, I think that seams reasonable for neighborhood parking pricing a year.
Weaver: What about commuters?
Schuchard: I think $100 or so a month for both of them is not unreasonable.
Schuchard: I think another thing you consider is Paris. They just announced plans to cancel half of on-street parking. You could think about that.
Weaver: What about fines?
Schuchard: We purposely didn't come in with a rebuttal. But I would say tow the car if it's parked in the bike lane. Treat it like it was within the middle of the lane.
Back to Brockett: When can we get to parking codes? (How much parking has to be provided by biz, homes, etc.)
Chris Hagelin: What I've heard is next year, 2022
Hagelin is the transportation planning manager, btw. We've done a lot of work already. "Once we start, we can hit the ground running and come very quickly with recommendations."
The one factor that needs considered is what changes did COVID have, Hagelin says.
Brockett: With neighborhood permits, how many do you get for yourself and guest?
Cris Jones: We don't limit # of permits. We allow 3 outright, purchased for each vehicle. Each resident gets 2 visitor permits for temp visitors and then guest permits for use up to 2 weeks.
Jones is deputy director of Community Vitality, which handles most of the parking programming in Boulder.
Many qs from Brockett on guest and visitor permits.
Brockett: What happens with increases after 2024, when we achieve cost recovery?
Jones: The intent is to ID what parking management tools we want to use and, on an annual basis, share data collection and recommended strategies.
Jones: "The NPP as it currently exists was designed to manage a certain type of parking overflow" in neighborhoods, and it's not necessarily the best model for every part of the city.
"What we've learned is folks have entered into the program and discovered it did not solve or make a significant change to their challenges," Jones says. We want to move to a more customized approach.
Not said but implied based on past discussion: NPPs are basically applied for by residents when there are parking issues. Staff is now proposing by-neighborhood analysis with parking solutions that are tailored to that area.
Yates shares some interesting personal history with parking, then asks about garage rates.
Jones: We want off-street parking to be cheaper than on-street.
I've mentioned cost recovery a lot, but I never explained really what that means for those of you who don't know. It currently costs more in staff time, city resources to run the neighborhood parking permit program than the permit fees bring in.
That's a separate issue from what the value of the land used for parking is, which is what TAB is talking about.

So the city is subsidizing such parking in two ways: Providing free or cheap land, then not charging enough to cover administrative costs.
Been sent a link with more of Ryan Schuchard's explanation/ comments, if you're interested. He's from TAB, as a reminder.
Mallory Baker explaining the factors that will go into setting prices/rules for neighborhood parking permits in the future. (Which I shared in an earlier tweet - occupancy, access to other modes of travel, trip generation)
Weaver: So would you have a higher price for permits in places where ppl could get around other ways? (walkability, close to transit, etc.)
Baker: We're not making specific recommendations around pricing right now. We could. We're just now looking at what makes an area eligible.
As I tweeted earlier, right now, any neighborhood that does a petition can get a permit program.
Pricing and such will be later steps, Baker says. We're just at the beginning.
Jones: The cost of a program in Whittier might be different than a neighborhood that doesn't have the same access to alternate modes of travel. But that's not the only factor.
How do we make sure, if we're going to charge more to one neighborhood than the other, what added value are they getting? Jones says.
Weaver: What are we planning to do about delivery vehicles in bike lanes?
Jones: That's really curbside management. We're making sure there's designated space in those high-demand corridors "to the greatest extent possible."
We'll have more details on that in coming months, Jones says.
I just want to clarify that my "LMAO" at Schuchard's $1,000/yr neighborhood permit price suggestion was just because it's SO FAR away from what council is considering.
Just bc I love when boards or outside experts have WILDLY different recommendations from council/staff. I LIVE for it.
Joseph asking about parking fines, and why we're charging more for subsequent violations.
Jones: I think at $15, ppl press their luck and risk a ticket. "We have usual suspects."
That's what universities do (charge more for repeat violations).
Joseph: Aside from the university, do other cities do this? I'm speaking from experience here, having gotten 1 or 2 tickets downtown and parking improperly.
Baker: This is a pretty standard parking management principle. In Boulder, about 25% of violators are these repeat offenders. That's "a big chunk."
"They're really having a detriment on the parking system. It erodes the ability of your parking supply to meet demand," Baker says.
"We don't want to make this a cash grab," Baker says. "We want people to follow the rules."
Baker lists other cities that do this.
Joseph: I'm having a hard time understanding commuter fees of $400 per year.
Jones: We know we have on-street capacity in residential areas surrounding Uni Hill and downtown, so we do sell commuter permits.
It's $400/yr to park in a neighborhood vs. $1,800 in parking garages, Jones says. It's helped us pay for that neighborhood permit program.
But we don't sell many away from Uni Hill or downtown.
Joseph: How closely are you working with the Chamber or small biz? And considering the impacts to ppl who drive here to work bc they can't afford to live here?
We are working with them and considering it, is basically Jones' answer.
There's also business permits as part of the neighborhood permit program. About a dozen or so of those exist, and the prices aren't proposed to go up.
Jones: They're not a huge burden on parking, they're already paying more than residents. Increasing the rate would be inconsequential on cost recovery.

This is for small corner biz located in neighborhoods, Jones says.
We treat them dif than biz in parking districts that have EcoPasses and such provided to employees, Jones says.

This was all in response to a Friend q.
Friend: How were working class ppl or commuters represented in feedback? That's a dif perspective than biz owners.
Jones: We did have a number of focus groups.
Baker expounding on that.
"The prices that are included (in recommendations) are the straight, unsubsidized pricing," Baker says. "We have recommended subsidies ... that are income qualified."
Friend: Did we consult the Environmental Advisory Board or Human Relations Commission for these recommendations?
Not in a formal manner, Jones says.
EAB could weigh in on climate aspects, and HRC on equity, Friend suggested.
Swetlik: "All these policies are only as good as the enforcement." Are we going to be stepping that up, or using the same enforcement just on different rules?
Long answer from Jones that is basically: Yeah, we're gonna do dif things, but it costs $$ (new technology, etc.) so we're slow-rolling it. (Cuz COVID budget)
Swetlik: At some point, there are diminishing returns. Do we know what that spot is? Or would additional staff generate additional revenue?
Jones: At this point, we're staffed for the amount of management needed. If we expand, for example, to Gunbarrel, that would require additional staff and fleet.
"The more we expand the coverage area," the more staff, space, $$ we'll need, Jones says.
Jones: "I feel good about where we're at and our capacity to take on a little more on the enforcement side."
Joseph: The memo says parking fine revenue is currently sufficient to pay for enforcement and other transportation needs. We're raising fines. What will that extra $$ be used for?
Jones: Those $$ don't come directly to community benefit or transportation (they go through the general fund). That's for finance and budget folks (and council) to decide.
Young asks about mobile biz / workers and curbside management. Kinda missed it.
Baker: Our current approach is working, but we need to give permits to these workers rather than having them rely on residents to share their parking passes.
Idea is to have them given a specific mobile biz permit, which would be priced as a biz neighborhood permit, and contribute to data collection (and therefore better policies).
Young giving a characteristic criticism of Schuchard's suggestions RE: parking pricing by asking questions that are actually statements making a point.
LOL Hagelin asks her to rephrase it. "I'm having a little difficulty following."
Her point (as I understood it) is that Boulder's climate plan ALSO included principles around equity, and distributing the costs, burdens and benefits equally.
Her rephrasing is making me rethink what her point was. The second time she said it, I think she's asking what limits does Boulder have on setting pricing.... ? idk.
Nor do I understand much of Hagelin's answer.
Except this:
"Parking management and parking pricing alone, while it is an effective tool for changing travel behavior, it is alone not sufficient to do so. We have to have a multi-modal system that provides options that are competitive to the private automobile..."
... not just in terms of cost, but in reliability and frequency."
60% of trips into BoCo are coming from Larimer and Weld County. They aren't even in the RTD area, Hagelin says. So transit is not an option for them.
That speaks to Young's q about what Boulder has control over vs. what it does, an important part of the new climate strategy.

Guess we figured out what she was asking.
Jones adds that other considerations is private parking availability. There's still so much free parking at shopping centers, etc.
So it's a measured approach.
Moving onto council comments.

Brockett: I think generally you're on the right track. I think we're giving neighborhood permit holders too many passes.
"In terms of making a little bit of a dent" in climate goals here, Brockett says, maybe we set pricing slightly higher.
Beyond just cost recovery.
Weaver: I support all the proposals, generally speaking.
The neighborhood parking prices aren't as high as TAB wanted (50X) but they're substantial, Weaver says: 40%
Weaver: From a climate perspective, it is an interesting strategy to try and prevent residents from parking near their homes when they don't commute very far or very long distances.
Weaver: "It's nice we really want to hammer on the folks that are parking in our neighborhoods, but he q needs to be asked what's the bang for our buck? For the political capital we're going to spend," what are we getting?
40% of our jobs are in/near the Flatiron Biz Park, which has free parking, Weaver says. We need to focus on in-commuters.
Price increases may not impact carbon emissions as much as you think, Weaver says. We need to quantify that.
Yates: These are great first steps. "I don't have a lot of pushback on anything."
But is concerned about increasing prices in parking garages. "We have a perception that it's difficult to park downtown," Yates says. I think that's a perception, not reality.
Either way, it keeps ppl from coming downtown, Yates says. Let's keep weekends in the parking garages free.
In the garages.
Nagle agrees with Yates on that. There was also talk about low-wage workers.

"There's people who can't take other forms of transportation."
Friend: If our goals are in part to get ppl to move away from driving, we should also be looking at converting street parking to something that offers more community benefit. Idk what that might be or what other cities are doing.
Otherwise echoes most of what's already been said.
Joseph: I'm not sold on increasing parking fines. Where's the evidence and data? "I'm not sure that can impact behavior."
Also wants the HRC to weigh in on proposals for equity concerns.
Joseph: "I have walked around Boulder for the last 3 years. It's very friendly." This parking system "sounds unfriendly for people who are just coming to visit Boulder." Compares it to parking in NYC.
Wallach agrees with that.
But generally in support of the proposals. Could deal with slightly higher pricing to raise $$, not just cover costs.
Young: Whatever extra $$ is brought in past cost recovery needs to be used on transportation demand management, and we need to quantify the climate-parking link. I don't think that was part of the scope of this particular project.
Basically on board with everything.
Including charging more for subsequent parking violations. Everyone cool with that but Joseph.
Doing some straw polls. Everyone but Brockett, Friend want to keep weekend parking at garages free.
Brockett says maybe just Sundays...? But wants more biz outreach before keeping Saturday in there.

Young likes that; another poll reveals no majority for that.
Staff will "bring back options and do outreach."
That's all for this one.
@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Shay Castle

Shay Castle Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shayshinecastle

23 Jun
The first part of this crime update is actually about Boulder's changing policing strategy. Crime data is at the end. Presentation:…
Boulder is currently "reimagining" the police dept. You can weigh in on that here:…
And read some more here:…
Read 69 tweets
22 Jun
Hey, #Boulder. Why is this city council night different from all other city council nights? Because it's the LAST ONE BEFORE SUMMER BREAK! Rejoice.
It's a study session, so no public input. But we're talking:
Crime / police dept strategy
Parking (pricing and neighborhood permits)
Extension of the CCS tax to pay for infrastructure projects
Riveting stuff.
Read 9 tweets
16 Jun
LAST item: Updating Boulder's eviction prevention services.

So No Eviction Without Representation was a citizen petition; it got amended and passed by voters then was renamed/expanded ---> Eviction Prevention Services, because it now included rental assistance.
Basically, provides rental assistance and legal representation to renters facing eviction through a $75 tax per unit of rental housing.

It's already been amended once to apply to mobile homes, and tonight will be extended further.
Read 34 tweets
16 Jun
Moving SO FAST. Next item is the vaping tax. Slides:…
I wrote about how this will impact pot shops, but the clarification is actually so the city can collect the tax from a whole bunch of retailers who sell vaping devices.…
That's because the current language explicitly says "tobacco retailers". But plenty of places sell vapes that's aren't explicitly tobacco retailers: Grocery stores, bars, liquor stores. And, of course, pot shops.
Read 130 tweets
16 Jun
Next: Public hearing on the landmarking of 96 Arapahoe Avenue, Nuzum's Nursery. Won't take long.

Here's the presentation. I have nothing to add.…
Actually, jk, I have these notes:
Nuzum’s Nursery - Now home to September School
Mid-century modern style (really?? Did you see those pictures??)
Built in 1940
Landmarks Board voted 5-0 to designate
THESE photos.
Read 7 tweets
16 Jun
Moving on: Potential call-up of the partial redevelopment of Diagonal Plaza into housing — including affordable rentals from BHP, which has an adjacent community.

Hard to tell from the slides, but most of the building will be on surface parking. Only the vacant Sports Authority and the Walgreen's will be redeveloped in the actual Diagonal Plaza. (Walgreen's moving staff and Rx to their location like 3 blocks away)
It would also put two streets through the site, with sidewalks, trees, etc.
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!