Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 1/16/2024COUNCIL STAFF REPORT •�y� ,.�'.,� CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 �� 11111 11 TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke DATE: January 16, 2024 RE: Budget Amendment #3 of Fiscal Year (FI) 2024 Project Timeline: Set Date: November 14, 2023 1st Briefing: December 5, 2023 2°dBriefing, Public Hearing, and Adopted Urgent Items: December 12, 2023 3rd Briefing: January 9, 2024 41h Briefing and Adopted Some Items: January 16, 2024 5th Briefing: February 6, 2024 and Potential Vote Potential Action: February 6, 2024 NEW INFORMATION At the January 16 briefing, the Council received a General Fund revenues update from the Finance Department. As of November, sales tax revenues are $3 million below budget projections. Sales tax receipts have a two -month delay between the purchase and the revenue coming in. The Council reviewed all remaining items proposed by the Administration. At the January 16 formal meeting, the Council adopted most remaining items except for two items (A-io and A-12) that had follow up questions. Additional information responding to Council Member questions on these two items is shown below. There is also a follow up item to release funds from an existing holding account to support the temporary sanctioned campground which is shown as item I-2 below. The Council may vote on some or all these three items at the February 6 formal meeting. A-io: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) Administration Responses to Council Follow Up Questions Below are the Council's follow up questions from earlier briefings and the Administration's responses: Question: How will the public, downtown businesses, and other organizations learn about the new parking pay stations? Response: The vendor will assist the City in producing an information campaign that will inform users of changes. This will occur both online and in person. Question: Will the existing ParkSLC mobile app continue or would a new app be needed? Response: At this time ParkSLC will continue to be used. Both the app vendor and the pay station vendor have assured us that an integration is possible between the two systems, just like the one that exists now. It is possible in the future the City may explore other app options, but there are no immediate plans to so. Question: Would the new stations allow the City to improve parking demand management practices? Would additional funding be needed for some technology features not currently expected to be included in the new kiosks but would be beneficial for the City? (For example, variable pricing during peak hours, paying for shorter or longer time periods, real-time information on where parking spaces are available (public and private), reservation -based parking spaces, vending zones like food trucks, and supporting the potential pedestrianization of closing Main Street during certain times). Response: The selection committee strongly desired to future proof the pay stations and thus special attention was given to all aspects of this question. The potential new stations have the capability to have a variable rate structure, paying for shorter or longer time periods, and the vending zone mentioned. They can also support providing regional information (items of interest nearby), advertising (events, local businesses, etc.) payment of parking citations, and sale and reloading of public transportation cards. It is expected that current practices for reserving a parking spot will continue. (User will need to request a reservation from Transportation, and the meter spot will then be bagged.) There is no additional funding anticipated for any of these services as the contract with the vendor provides support services that would be utilized as decisions are made to implement the parking management practices. There is the option to purchase an occupation module with a web portal as well as pollution sensors that could be installed on each pay station. The stations could also be upfitted to manage electrical car charging at additional costs. Question: Is information available about what percentage of users interact with kiosks vs the parking app? Other metrics about also be useful context for the Council to consider this funding request. Council Member Puy mentioned during the briefing that some cities have no physical kiosks so all customers use the app. Has that option been explored and are there pros and cons that could be shared? Response: In 2022 Transportation commissioned a parking study performed by an outside party. This study found that 41%-6o% is the pay-by-app share of transactions for most pay stations. Due to this variance, the plan is to only remove about 10 pay stations or so. However, Transportation is hoping to slightly expand the footprint of paid parking spots, thus the net change will be negligible. While app usage is increasing, there are still enough cash/card transactions carried out at the pay stations to retain them. Pay stations also ensure equity of access to parking for those who prefer to use cash, or don't want to use the app. The study also found that the average number of transactions in 2022 per pay station was 3,015. Parking Meter Study and Two New Attachments The Public Services Department and Transportation Division shared two new attachments that informed this budget request: Attachment 3 is a Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation, and Attachment 4 is the final report from November 2022. The study raises several policy topics for possible future consideration such as: - Expanding parking meters in new areas, o In the short-term possible west downtown, Station Center, Granary District, Central Ninth, parts of Central City, o In the medium -term the Sugar House business district), - Updating the fee schedule and fines including potentially new zones with different fees and rate structures - Changing time limits, reducing free parking times, and increasing days of the week and time of the day for enforcement, and - New policies for special events and special overlay areas. The Council may wish to consider scheduling a separate briefing on the parking meters study findings. A-12: A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,00o from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) In response to Council questions about where police officers are located during overtime shifts related to the temporary sanctioned campground, the Police Department clarified that officers "are in the surrounding area of the sanctioned campground including the area of the downtown security initiative. Officers are not staffed inside the sanctioned campground but will respond to calls for service inside the sanctioned campground as needed." The Council also asked for information about the Department's overtime budget, vacancy savings, and personnel services budget. The Department responded that actual expenses for overtime are nearly $2.8 million so far in FY2024 which exceeds the $1.8 million overtime budget. Note there is a related $1.8 million request in Budget Amendment #4 for police officer overtime. The Department stated that the personnel services budget numbers will be available later because of pending financial system report validations. I-2: General Operations Support for the Temporary Sanctioned Campground ($500,000 from Nondepartmental Holding Account) This is a follow up item to release $500,000 to the State for general operations at the temporary sanctioned campground (not reimbursement for specific incurred expenses). The total estimated cost to operate the campground is $86o,000 from December through April. Note that the $86o,000 operating cost doesn't include the City's expenses to prepare the site to host the campground such as utility upgrades and the State's cost to purchase the Foldum micro shelter units. The campground is anticipated to operate until April 30, 2024. The State is evaluating ongoing funding options and preparing a permanent location for the campground several blocks away from the temporary site. FY2024 Conditional Appropriation Ordinance Text The Council previously put $1.5 million from the General Fund into a holding account for potential expenses related to the temporary sanctioned campground. All those funds remain in the holding account. The Council included the below conditional appropriation language in the FY2024 annual budget adoption ordinance. The Council could vote on this condition being satisfied and releasing $500,000 from the holding account at the February 6 formal meeting. "Conditional Appropriation -- Sanctioned Camping Catalytic Grant Fund — $500,000 for sanctioned camping/RV parking into a holding account, pending future discussion with Administration, fact-finding on best practices from other cities, and local and State considerations." Policy questions: ➢ Additional Funding Needs — The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether additional funding requests related to the temporary sanctioned campground are anticipated. ➢ Coordinating Closure of Temporary Site and Opening of Permanent Campground — The Council may wish to ask the Administration what preparations are underway to coordinate tenants moving from the temporary site to the State's permanent campground. — Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings — At the January 9 briefing, the Council discussed the modified proposal for item A-1 from the Fire Department which requests four civilian single -role paramedics. The Council took a unanimous straw poll in support of the proposal. Item A-1 has a related resolution that would request admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for emergency medical personnel including paramedics and social workers. The retirement system resolution and the budget adoption ordinance will be listed separately on the formal meeting agenda for individual votes. The Finance Department has provided a General Fund revenues update presentation that will be given at the January 16 briefing. Council Members had requested the update as context to consider the remaining items in Budget Amendment *3. On January 16, the Council will continue reviewing items that were not yet discussed at earlier briefings. The Council may consider voting on item A-1, the related resolution, and remaining budget items in this amendment at the January 16 formal meeting. — Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings — At the December 12 briefing, the Council reviewed four items previously discussed with time sensitive deadlines (e.g., the upcoming Utah Legislature's General Session, anticipated price increases, winter shelter needs, and manufacturer order windows). At the formal meeting later that day, the Council closed the public hearing and adopted the four urgent items listed below. The budget amendment remains open. Some Council Members expressed a preference to receive a General Fund Balance update as confirmed by the annual financial audit and revenue projections as context for considering remaining items in this budget amendment. The Finance Department is expected to be available to present these updates at the January 16 briefing. The Fire Department submitted a modified proposal for item A-1 which is summarized below. At the time of publishing, details were pending on remaining funds from prior year appropriations related to item I-1 for physical security improvements to City Hall. Urgent Items Adopted on December 12 - A-4: City Attorney's Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,190 from General Fund Balance of which $20,000 is one-time for workspaces, and $12,000 to the IMS Fund one-time) - A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance, and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund) - A-16: The Road Home's Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) - D-2: IMS FY2023 Encumbrance Reappropriation ($4,269,083 from IMS Fund Balance) Modified Proposal for A-i: Fire Department Medical Response Civilian Single Role Paramedics Request for Two New FTEs and Reclassify Two Vacant Entry-level Firefighter FTEs (Budget Neutral in FY2024 Using Vacancy Savings; $133,266 New Ongoing General Fund Cost in FY2025) After the Council's initial discussion on December 5, the Fire Department submitted a modified proposal for this item. The table below compares the original and modified proposals. The Department considers staffing civilian single role paramedics in the existing Medical Response Teams to be a pilot program. Currently, firefighter EMTs staff the Medical Response Teams. If the pilot program creates operational efficiencies as expected, then additional civilian single role paramedics may be requested in the next annual budget. Proposal FTEs (full-time employees) FY2024 Budget Impact FY2025 Budget Impact Original 4 new FTEs $160,519 from General Fund Balance $292,638 Reclassify 2 vacant entry-level Budget neutral; using Modified firefighter FTEs, and $133,266 2 new FTEs vacancy savings — Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings — At the first briefing, the Council discussed time sensitive items and the three items requesting new full-time employees (FTEs). The other items will be discussed at the follow-up briefing on December 12. The Council may consider adopting some or all items in Budget Amendment #3 after the public hearing is held, although standard practice would be to consider only the time sensitive items. In addition to the amendment adoption ordinance, the Council could also act on another ordinance that is proposed for item A-4 to codify a Legislative Affairs Division in the City Attorney's Office and the duties and functions of that department. Item A-1 also has a resolution proposed requesting admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for emergency medical personnel including social workers. Straw Polls The Council took the following nonbinding straw polls at the first briefing: A-4: City Attorney's Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,22o from General Fund Balance): o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support a division director FTE appointed ($85,510) and a senior city attorney merit ($117,676). o Three in favor, three against, and one absent to support a special projects analyst ($61,707) and administrative assistant ($52,297)• o Note the amounts above in parenthesis are half -year costs for salary, benefits, $3,000 per employee for electronic devices (e.g., computers), and $5,000 per employee to establish workspaces. - A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund) o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the additional funding request, transfer to the Fleet Fund, and funding source swap. - A-16: The Road Home's Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the one-time appropriation for motel and hotel vouchers available to families experiencing homelessness. — Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings — Budget Amendment Number Three includes 31 proposed amendments, $3,103,054 in revenues and $15,244,714 in expenditures of which $1,738,732 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to eight funds. Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of nine FTE's. Four of the nine FTEs are being requested in Item A-1 for the Fire Department and four FTEs are being requested in A-4 for the City Attorney's new Legislative Division. The other new FTE is being requested in A-13 in the Finance Department. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 14.3% which is $5,784,487 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. Note: this figure includes both General Fund and Funding our Future fund balances. The Administration's chart of projected Fund Balance later in this report was prepared before the Council voted in item I-1 of Budget Amendment #2 to return $1 million to General Fund Balance from an affordable housing development grant that did not proceed. This increased the projected percentage from the 14.o8% to 14.3%. The projected Fund Balance does not include unused FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million to $3 million drop to Fund Balance annually, which would increase the Fund Balance percentage. It also does not include actual revenues through the end of the last fiscal year. The comprehensive annual financial audit will confirm the actual Fund Balance through the end of FY2023. The annual audit is typically completed in December. This updated 14.3% combined Fund Balance is higher than estimated during the annual budget deliberations in June and Budget Amendment #1 last month due to finance department clarification on best practices for what to include or not include in Fund Balance calculations. The revised estimate did not impact the Funding Our Future portion of Fund Balance which remains at 14.51% which is $791,5o1 above the 13% minimum target. Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments Council staff has provided the following list of new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE's approved during this fiscal year's budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City's annual budget if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year -over -year. Budget Potential Cost Full Time Employee Amendment Item to FY2025 (FTEs) Notes Annual Budget Item A-1: Homeless 0.5 FTE Community This position is proposed to be half funded General Fund Development from the State Homeless Shelter Cities #2 Reallocation Cost $53,544 Grant Specialist for Mitigation Grant and half by the General Fund Share for State Homelessness Engagement and for FY2024. The $107,088 reflects the fully Homeless Mitigation Response Team (HEART) loaded annual cost for the FTE. Grant Item A-5: Create a Reclassify an existing FTE to a Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape Public Lands Planning higher pay grade and director of architect positions and associated operating #2 & Design Division $11,139 new division. Request position budget ($543,144) from the Engineering be appointed in a future budget Division (Public Services Department) to this opening. new division in the Public Lands Department. A-6 Sorenson 1 Senior Community Programs This item requires amending an existing Janitorial and County Manager interlocal agreement with the County. At the Contract - Senior Budget Neutral time of publishing this report, staff is checking #2 Community Programs (see note to the whether the amendment could result in Manager right) additional funding needs to maintain current levels of service. The item might not be budget neutral depending on the agreement changes. A-7: Economic 1 Economic Development Project Would be focused on the creation of Special Development Project Manager Assessment Areas or SAAs for business #2 Manager Position $122,000 districts and renewal every three to five years. #2 A-9: Know Your Program expenses were inadvertently left out Neighbor Program $6,500 of the last annual budget Expenses #2 A-1o: Love Your Program expenses were inadvertently left out Block Program $55,750 of the last annual budget Expenses Budget Potential Cost Full Time Employee Amendment Item to FY2o25 (FTEs) Notes Annual Budget Item E-3: Homeless i� Existing FTEs: Admin expects to apply for grant funding Shelter Cities - 2 Police sergeants annually to cover these costs. General Fund Mitigation Grant -10 police officers would not need to cover costs if the State grant Award - i Business & community is awarded to the City to fully cover the costs. liaison 4.5 New FTEs: Note: Justice Court FlE is part of the City's #2 $3,10'7,201 - 1 Sequential Intercept Case contribution towards implementation of the Manager in the Justice Court "Miami Model" of diversion out of the - 0.5 Grant Specialist in CAN homelessness system. (half grant funded and half by the General Fund in item above) -1 Police sergeant - 2 police officers G-1: Greater Salt Lake Four years of salary and benefits. The position Area Clean Energy would be responsible for facilitating the and Air Roadmap 2,915 $48ng sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, #2 Coordinator Position is to (funding s 1 Coordinator managing consultants, assisting with cover four years community engagement, coordinating of new FlE) stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and achievement. #3 A-1: Fire Department $292,638 4 New Medical Response Annual cost (4 New FTEs) Paramedic FTEs A-4 City Attorney's Legislative Affairs Director Office Legislative (E34) • Senior City Attorney Division (4 New FTEs) (E39) • Special Projects Analyst #3 $594,441 (E26) • Administrative Assistant Annual cost (N21) Focus on legislative affairs, with special emphasis on the legislative session #3 A-9: Adding Multimodal $200,000 Specialized Road Markings Budget Potential Cost Full Time Employee Amendment Item to FY2o25 (FTEs) Notes Annual Budget Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division's Base Budget #3 A-io: Downtown Would be paid annually over six fiscal years Parking Pay Station $271,985 from FY2025 — FY2030 Replacements TOTALS $4,715,199 28 FTEs of which 24 are New Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments The Administration indicates that there are no revenue projection updates yet for FY2024. An updated is anticipated in the next budget amendment after the comprehensive annual financial audit is completed. Amended Variance Favorable Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget FY23-24 Amended Budget Revised Forecast (Unfavorable) Property Taxes 129,847,140 129,947,140 129,847,140 Sa I e a nd Use Taxes 117,129,000 117,12 9,000 117,129,000 Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,349,127 12,348,127 Payment in Lieu of Takes 1,905,573 1,9Q5,573 1,905,573 261,229,840 2.61,229,840 261,229,940 Total Taxes Licenses and Permits 40,878,104 40,879,104 40,878,144 Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,134,621 Interest income 8,000,000 81000,000 8,000,000 Fines 4,063,548 4,063,548 4,063,549 Pa rking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,099 Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,881,922 4,981,922 4,881,922 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,502,359 3,502,359 3,502,359 Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,131,213 Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 366,561,640 366,561,640 366,561,640 Total Wf 0 Special Tax Additiona I Sales Tax (11296) 49,084,479 49,084,479 49,084,479 415,646,119 415,646,119 415,646,119 Total General Fund Fund Balance Chart The Administration's chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for Budget Amendment #3. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.o8%. After this chart was developed, the Council added $1 million to Fund Balance in Budget Amendment #2 which increased the estimated percentage to 14.3%. Beginning Fund Balance Budgeted Change in Fund Balance Prior Year Encumbrances Estimated Beginning Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Percent Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes Expense Changes (Nrepaids. Receivable, au.) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes Final Fund Balance Percent Budget Arn c nd ment llse of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment BA#1 Expense Adjustment BA#2 Revenue Adjustment BA#2 Expense Adjustment BA#3 Revenue Adjustment BA#3 Expense Adjustment BA#4 Revenue Adjustment BA#4 Expense Adjustment BA#5 Revenue Adjustment BA#5 Expense Adjustment BA#6 Revenuc Adjustment BA#6 Expense Adjustment BA#7 RevCnUe Adjustment BA#7 Expense Adjustment Change in Revenue Change in Expense Fund Balance Budgeted Increase justcd Fund Balance Adjusted Fund Balance Perrmt Pruiected Rcvenuc 9,211,15 (32,8G8,7 �9.7R 3,3Y�I1 14.89S L A [2Q4,2 763,950 (1,730,7 A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The Administration requests that document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items Impact Fees Update The Administration's transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as Of 7/20/23. The table below has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on -track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025 The transportation section of the City's Impact Fees Plan was updated in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan. Cash "Available to Spend" Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees TeUnallocated $273,684 More than two years away $14,064,637 More than two years away - Police $1,402,656 More than two years away - Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Section A: New Items Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration's descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items. A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics Request for Four New FTEs ($16o,519 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is proposing a further evolution to staffing for the Medical Response Teams (MRTs). The proposal would increase the scope and efficiency of the team while reducing the cost of staffing each of four (4) SUV-based light response MRT units throughout Salt Lake City. The proposal adds four civilian Paramedic FTEs to the Fire Department. Each would be classified as Single -Role Paramedics (SRP's) and would be allocated specifically to MRT positions currently held by firefighter/EMT's. The displaced firefighters would fill daily vacancies throughout the department, and staff additional apparatus as the department grows. This will likely result in overtime budget savings although the exact amount is unknown at this time. In its current form the MRT is a successful program, but from a budgetary perspective, staffing the MRTs exclusively with firefighter/EMTs is not the most efficient use of resources. Civilian Paramedics are a less costly position than a sworn firefighter, and the training time to onboard is significantly shorter (2 weeks rather than 16). The request for FY2024 would be $150,119 plus some startup costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be $292,638. Approving this shift mid -year would enable the department to start the hiring process for SRP's in January and incorporate them into the MRT's as soon as February 2024. The department plans to continue gathering data on the budgetary impact of this shift on the MRT program in order to inform the FY25 budget plan. Background - The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs) with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs staffed by 16 firefighter/EMTs. This initiative was initially funded by the Council in 2014, in part to realize fuel and staffing efficiencies. Having been proven successful over the years both from a sustainability and staffing perspective, it was expanded in 2022 to include social workers when available. When a social worker is combined with an MRT the City refers to this as a Community Health Access Team (CHAT). The department has indicated that when all social worker positions are filled, their goal is to have a social worker on 2 MRT teams (becoming a CHAT), 6 days a week. Staff has included Attachment 3 showing relevant data for the first full year of CHAT operations. ➢ Policy question — In addition to the relevant data collected on the MRT program, the Council may wish to ask the Administration to also collect data on any potential department -wide overtime savings of this shift. A-2: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Management Employee Expenses ($14,225 from ARPA) The Economic Development Department is requesting $14,225 of ARPA funds budgeted in previous fiscal years that was not used. The funds would cover expenses for an existing employee supporting the Department's administration of ARPA local business direct assistance grants and local nonprofit pass -through assistance grants. The Department hired two FTEs to administer the programs through FY2023. However, the program implementation has taken longer than anticipated. One of the FTEs has left employment with the City and the position is no longer needed. This additional funding would provide a total of $125,000 for the second position through the end of FY2024. The two grant assistance programs are expected to be completed at the end of FY2024 so the second FTE would no longer be needed next fiscal year. A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: City Attorney's Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($297,220 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is proposing to add four new FTEs to create a Legislative Division within the City Attorney's Office. According to the transmittal, "The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City." The amount requested for FY2024 (6 months of funding) is $297,220.40, which includes one-time startup costs such as computers ($12,000, to be budgeted as a transfer to IMS), and funding to establish workspaces and necessary equipment ($2o,000). The full year cost for the four positions is $594,440.79• Note: The Administration would like to gauge Council support on this item at the first briefing such as a straw poll and consider whether to approve this item at the December 12 meeting, so that positions can be advertised/onboarded prior to the 2024 State Legislative Session which begins Tuesday, January 16, 2024. The four proposed positions are as follows: • Legislative Affairs Division Director (Grade E34 - appointed) • Senior City Attorney (Grade E39 - merit) • Special Projects Analyst (Grade E26 - merit) • Administrative Assistant (Grade N21- merit) The proposal also includes an ordinance to amend the City Code to document this as a new division and to clarify that the City Attorney's Office and Legislative Division report equally to both branches of government. The Administration notes that the ordinance: • Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council Chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the Mayor. • Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder's Office, Risk Management Division, and Division of Legislative Affairs. • Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City Attorney's Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City. • Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City. • Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City's legislative agenda and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies. Staff is working with the Attorney's Office on several clarifying edits to the ordinance to ensure it matches the intent of the bullet points listed above. See Attachment 1 for the approved as to form version of the ordinance and Attachment 2 for the redlined version (showing edits in track changes format). A-5: Additional Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction in Sugar House ($3,323,950 from Transportation Impact Fees) This request would maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the 2100 South reconstruction project. The total estimated cost for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business District (from 70o East to 1300 East) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in response to community -desired elements. Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid after which exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2024. The table below summarizes budget line items for this project including the additional funding requested in this budget amendment. No further funding requests are anticipated for this project. Sourcimount Original 2100 South Bond Amount 8,000,000 Transportation Impact Fees 660,410 Class C 814,027 (minimum, could increase) Remaining contingency from 300 West $850,000 project that can be applied to 2100 South 2022-2023 CIP Complete Streets $300,000 2023-2024 CIP Complete Streets $2,750,000 (of $3,293,000 — the remainder goes to Virginia Street) Additional Streets Reconstruction Bond $1,500,000 Funds from Budget Amendment #i Requested additional transportation $3,323,590 impact fees in Budget Amendment #3 otal $18,198,027 Note: Public Utilities elements are funded separately and not reflected in the table The project webpage is publicly available at www.21oosouthslc.org A-6: Additional Funding for 600/70o North Reconstruction ($3,204,371 from Transportation Impact Fees) This request would almost maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the 600/70o North corridor reconstruction and transformation project. It is eligible for another $400,000 of transportation impact fees however the current unallocated available balance is not enough to cover that additional amount. The Council may see a request in a future budget opening for the additional $400,000 if enough transportation impact fee revenue comes in later this fiscal year or next. The total estimated cost for reconstructing the corridor (from Redwood Road to Boo West) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in response to community - desired elements. The 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond included $9,753,00o for this project. The Council also approved $1,879,654 in FY2022 CIP from Funding Our Future transit dollars for this project. A frequent (every 15 minutes) bus service route runs along this corridor. Several other smaller funding sources are also anticipated to be used for the project such as Class C funds, remaining Streets Reconstruction bond funds unused from completed projects, grants, and CIP complete streets funds. Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid after which exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2025. The project webpage is publicly available at www.600northslc.org A-7: Security Access Control System Upgrades ($400,000 from General Fund Balance) Additional one-time funding is needed to continue transitioning City buildings to an upgraded S2 control access system as the citywide standard. The back -end software was recently upgraded for the Public Safety Building and City Hall. This item would allow the same upgrade for Plaza 349 and the Justice Court buildings. The funding also includes card readers and proximity cards (sometimes called smart badges or access cards) for employees using the four buildings. The Council could discuss this item in a closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems. A-8: Additional Funds to Purchase Electric Trucks instead of Sedans for the Compliance Division ($20,00o from General Fund Balance) Current funding would allow the Fleet Division to purchase two electric sedans. One sedan to replace a jeep that is past useful life and another sedan for three new FTEs added in the annual budget to create the RV and Long-term Parking Enforcement Team. This funding request would allow both vehicles to be electric trucks instead of sedans. The larger vehicles would provide greater capabilities for the team to operate during the winter, inclement weather, and in neighborhoods with steep roads. The trucks also have larger cargo space for equipment and supplies such as pay station kiosks. A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division's Base Budget ($200,000 from General Fund Balance) The Council did not fund this item in FY2024 CIP but requested the Administration evaluate adding this ongoing maintenance need to the ongoing base budget for the Public Services Department or the Transportation Division in the Community and Neighborhoods Department. The Council previously funded this item in CIP for a couple years. The Administration recommends increasing the Streets Division's base budget by $200,000. This item would be a one-time appropriation from General Fund Balance. The next annual budget would then include the $20o,000 as ongoing. Council Members discussed the competitive CIP process, and that basic maintenance and safety funding better belongs in the annual operating budgets of some departments. Any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year would lapse to General Fund Balance. The funding will be used for hiring contractors with specialized equipment. Examples of city -owned assets that could be maintained include i,olo bike racks, over three miles of green painted pavement, bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, and radar feedback signs. The Public Services Department and Transportation Division will develop optimal maintenance schedules for these assets and evaluate potential equipment and staffing costs to bring the work in-house vs. the current approach of using outside contractors. A-1o: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance) The blue tower parking pay stations in the downtown are over a decade old and past the recommended useful life. This is causing increasing maintenance costs and operations issues. The Administration issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and is evaluating the bid submissions. This item is being included in a budget amendment because of timeliness challenges around equipment ordering and delivery windows. Based on the RFP responses, the Administration estimates a seven- year payment schedule would be best. An initial half year payment would be this fiscal year and then larger payments evenly spread across years two through seven (fiscal years 2025 — 2030). A shorter payment schedule or a one-time lump - sum payment could result in savings because the total cost would be less than the seven-year payment schedule. However, the larger upfront costs for a shorter schedule or one-time lump -sum payment would also reduce the General Fund Balance more in the short-term. New parking pay stations are expected to have features not available on the current older equipment such as pay by license plate capabilities, public service information like events in the area, business and organization sponsored parking validations, pay parking citations at a station, multiple languages, and pollution sensors. The old meters would be recycled to the extent possible. New meters may be in new locations based on revenue evaluations for old station locations. Policy Questions: ➢ Public Education — The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the public, downtown businesses, and other organizations will learn about the new parking pay stations. The Council may also wish to ask whether the existing ParkSLC mobile app will continue, or a new app would be needed. ➢ Parking Demand Management — The Council may wish to ask the Administration would the new stations allow the City to improve parking demand management practices and whether funding would be needed to study options such as variable pricing during peak hours, paying for shorter or longer time periods, real-time information on where parking spaces are available (public and private), reservation -based parking spaces, vending zones like food trucks, and supporting the potential pedestrianization of closing Main Street during certain times. A-11: Reappropriation for Rail Spur Removal ($205,000 from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund) The Council originally approved this funding in Budget Amendment #i of FY2023. A reappropriation is needed because the funds were not used by the end of last fiscal year and lapsed to General Fund Balance. The rail spur at 600 West and 500 South was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. There have been a couple similar rail spur removals in recent years. The Administration stated this is believed to be the last rail spur removal in the area. Note that the budget spreadsheet in the Administration's transmittal mistakenly identifies this item as ongoing when the funding is one-time. A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years) This item would provide one-time funding for police officer overtime shifts at and in the area around the sanctioned campground pilot program ("temporary shelter community") at approximately 300 South and 600 West. It is expected to operate until April 30, 2024. The overtime shifts would be voluntary so some might go unfilled. The overtime rate would be $65/hour as an incentive for shifts to be filled. The Police Department will evaluate staffing levels to determine how many officers are needed by shift (e.g., days, evenings, and nights). The Department will also utilize vacancy savings to fund additional overtime shifts as needed. Over the five months of December through April, the $500,000 could provide an average of five police officers working io-hour overtime shifts per day. The actual staffing levels per day and time of day will vary based on officers signing up for voluntary shifts, the volume of calls for service, proactive patrols, and other factors. At the time of publishing this staff report an ARPA reconciliation was pending to show which budgets were unused in prior fiscal years and whether any more ARPA funding remains available for repurposing. The Council previously put $1.5 million from the General Fund into a holding account for potential expenses related to the temporary sanctioned campground. All those funds remain in the holding account. Policy Questions: ➢ Where would officers be for overtime shifts? — The Council may wish to ask the Administration would officers be inside the sanctioned campground, immediately around it, and/or how wide of an area around it would be proactively patrolled? ➢ Additional Funding Needs — The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether more funding is anticipated to be needed for the temporary sanctioned campground's operations, mitigating public safety issues, or other related costs. A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst FTE in the Finance Department for Grants Administered by the Housing Stability Division ($46,643 from CDBG and $14,548 from ARPA) This request would fund one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024. The position is intended to oversee grants administered by the Housing Stability Program. The proposed grant analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. The position will be split across two grant funding sources — 75% CDBG and 25% from ARPA. A job description for this position was included in the Administration's transmittal. The City has experienced a significant increase in the number and complexity of grant applications and grant awards over the past few years. This trend is expected to continue as departments apply for more grants such as billions of dollars in federal grants spread over multiple years from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. Historically, the City has not used all the available funding from CDBG to cover the costs of administering the program as allowed under U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. There is anticipated to be enough ongoing CDBG funding to help cover most costs related to this new FTE over the long-term. The remaining 25% of the costs may be covered by other grant funding depending on how much the FTE directly works on those programs. The ability to use grant funds for personnel expenses is often limited to hours spent working directly on the grant programs. ➢ Policy question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide metrics on the number of grant applications and awards in recent years and are additional resources (e.g., software, FTEs, trainings) needed to improve management of grants. A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems ($250,000 from the IMS Fund Balance) This item was previously appropriated in Budget Amendment 5 of FY2023 but, due to delays in the RFP process, was ineligible to be encumbered prior to the fiscal year end and fell to IMS's fund balance. The RFP process is underway, and the Department wishes to reappropriate this funding. The Public Utilities Billing System (PUBS) was developed and expanded by IMS over the past two decades. The system is reaching the end of life and needs to be replaced. In addition to Public Utilities, some General Fund departments use the system, like Sustainability and Community and Neighborhoods. This funding is to hire a consultant to evaluate the City's needs and identify the best path for a smooth implementation of the system's replacement. Microsoft support for the current system is expected to end as soon as July 2024. A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund) The Council approved $750,000 in FY2024 CIP from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to purchase an asphalt paver and a cold -milling machine that do this type of pavement maintenance. In the FY2024 annual budget, the Council also approved $130,000 ongoing from Funding Our Future for program supplies. The Public Services Department was notified that the manufacturer increased prices after these appropriations were approved. $205,177 is needed in addition to the $75o,000 in CIP to purchase the two machines. The Department has previously rented these machines. Purchasing the machines is estimated to be a more cost-effective option in the long term than continuing to rent. This item would also swap the funding sources for two projects to better align funding eligibilities with project uses. At the time of publishing this report, staff has requested information on the allowable uses of quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds as equipment purchases were previously thought to be eligible. The Mill & Overlay equipment would be shifted away from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds that were also approved by the Council in FY2024 CIP. An equivalent $750,000 for complete streets reconstruction projects would be shifted away from General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds to the quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds. The Mill and Overlay provides a pavement maintenance option that is greater than filling a pothole or chip & slurry surface treatments and less than a full street reconstruction. For example, cutting down a few inches into deteriorated asphalt and removing a several foot stretch and then backfilling with new asphalt. ➢ Policy question: The Council may wish to consider a straw poll for this item so the Department could proceed with drafting contracts before the next price increase which is anticipated to be in mid -December. A-16: The Road Home's Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance) This item would provide one-time funding to assist the State and The Road Home's efforts to provide motel rooms to families experiencing homelessness from December 2023 to June 2024. The motel vouchers could be considered a stopgap option until a new family non -congregate shelter opens next spring / summer. This new facility will be in addition to the existing Midvale Family Recourse Center or MFRC. The average cost is estimated at $600-80o per week for a hotel room serving a family of four. Actual costs could be more or less depending on the size of a family and variable rates at different hotels. A one -page summary of the plan is shown as the last page of the Administration's transmittal. The Road Home stated there are existing contracts with motels for 12 rooms and one case manager assigned to the program. Additional case managers would be hired per 12 hotel rooms that are contracted to ensure adequate staffing to workload ratios. A supportive services manager is also anticipated to be hired. The Administration has requested a straw poll on this item to facilitate contract development in advance of the final Council vote. ➢ Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the funding gap for the overall plan and would the City's $300,000 fill the existing funding gap? Adding up all the costs on the one -page summary indicates the total cost could exceed $i million. The Council may also wish to task what other entities are contributing funding towards the plan? Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-i: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation and Downtown Central Project ($513,208 from CAN to Public Services) Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one department to another for the same work. D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward ($4,269,083) IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis. D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non -Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center ($250,000) This item is to move funds from the Art's Council Division to the Economic Development's Non -Departmental budget. This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources (None) Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry ($200,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor ($ioo,000 from Misc. Grants) DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $1oo,000 to pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The extension will include an increase of $1oo,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $20o,000. This is a refugee volunteer program that runs through the Mayor's office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup ($495,200 from Misc. Grants) This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Salt Lake City area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,2oo to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site (22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. A public hearing was held on December 13, 2022. No match is required. G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($38,000 from Misc. Grants) The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023. A 50% match is required. G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates ($346,132 from Misc. Grants) The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. The grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. A public hearing was held on November 7, 2023. No match is required. G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant ($386,620 from Misc. Grants) The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following: -Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $2o,16o • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts - $49,o98 •Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted Enforcement Overtime - $76,1oo • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required. G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park ($29,5o8 from Misc. Grants) This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood Park, located at 140o North 12oo West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 8o% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required. G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park ($20,517 from Misc. Grants) This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or 8o% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex ($12,882 from Misc. Grants) This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (i) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 208o Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $12,881.77 or 8o% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-1o: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library ($22,642 from Misc. Grants) This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West l000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of four (4) charging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 8o% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required. G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras ($15,000 from Misc. Grants) FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required. G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAO) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units. The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber enticement, sexual exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on August 15, 2023. No match is required. Section I: Council -Added Items I-1: Releasing Funds for Physical Security Improvements to City Hall ($154,000 from CIP Holding Account) In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023, the Council put $1 million into a Capital Improvement Program or CIP Fund holding account for one-time to be determined physical security improvements to City Hall. The Public Services Department is requesting these funds in a budget amendment so the improvements could be done in tandem with current earthquake repairs to minimize disruptions in the building. The total project cost is estimated at $24o,886. The FY2023 annual budget included funding for building security which is $86,886 of the project cost. If the Council approves this item, then the holding account would have a remaining balance of $846,000. The Council could discuss this item in a closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems. ATTACHMENTS 1. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Approved as to Form 2. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Redline 3. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation 4. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Final Report November 2022 ACRONYMS CAN — Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP — Capital Improvement Program Fund EPA — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FTE — Full Time Employee FY — Fiscal Year GF — General Fund FOF — Funding Our Future IMS — Information Management Services Misc. — Miscellaneous OJJDP — Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention RDA — Redevelopment Agency SAA — Special Assessment Area TBD — To Be Determined VOCA — Victims of Crime Act Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation 11 \° WALKER CONSULTANTS wil Why We're Doing This • Downtown and other key neighborhoods have seen growth and other changes that have affected on -street parking occupancy and usage habits. • Salt Lake City will soon replace its existing parking meters with all -new equipment. • As part of the replacement process, parking planning staff wanted to evaluate the current system to understand existing operating efficiencies, trends in meter usage, changes in land use and density, and how existing policies, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. • Based on information gathered and data analyzed, the number and locations of meters in the existing paid area can be right -sized and adjusted to fit current needs. • That information can also be combined with an analysis of future growth areas to provide quantity and cost estimates for potential future expansion of parking meters outside of the existing paid area. • Finally, the information can help Salt Lake City to adjust their policies, rates, and fees in order to optimize operations, streamline enforcement, and potentially increase revenue by bringing policies, rates, and fees more in line with peer city averages and best practices. Summary of Existing Conditions (B HISTORICAL TRENDS sov 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% CURRENT USAGE (2021 - 2022) Number of Meters* 20% o 15% 0 280 o � 10% 5% 0% 2015 - 2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021- * Number of deployed and operational 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 meters as of August 2022 (278 in November 2022) Requirements & Thresholds 0 CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS METER t 11,300 REQUIREMENTS* * Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts. Maximum Share of Pay-by-App Transactions Minimum Number of Transactions 2 per Block Face Feet Max Distance Total Pay-by-App Transactions Usage Threshold - Threshold ■ Under 1,300 Over 60% Over 1,300 Under 60% ■ f - - - - - - V - - - - - / 5 .......... ■ ■ ■ 0 0 a m z E South Temple St, 0 W Z Z E O `z (A "0 m a o ] z i; Mort Temple'St. m� O 2 3 J. J n �. o � N 100 s 0 °m N W 500 Study Area W Boundary City Limits N WALKER C 0 N S U � 7 A N T 5 7770uth Temp St. �Cz n 0 E South,T■empleSt. U C� . n�WliooAF1 9CU� --9 i,zoo s� ■ ❑ y n �Y n E zaa�s 0 _W 300 5 �L I� C �. C oao C C J E' 00*S C «n 89 n o ■ � � C (c I ro N M N W 41's C rN E 400 S r OL W 500 5 i■ E SOO j' 69 - i 70 ■ ■ W 600 5" - E 600 S _ J r W700S E 700 5 SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS TOTAL TRANSACTIONS & PAY-BY-APP USAGE OVER/UNDER THRESHOLDS o A W 300 N 4i . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Ivv 0�� . . . M M . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 0 0 co W z z z z z i Temple S E 2nd AVE. z W South Temple ou Temple St.. LU _w 100 s W100S q E1005r r E 100 5 T 1210 ■ VI- ++ W 300S E 00 �-W,400LLLtE 400 S—w W i mCO W,5jb— ­F�o,W,500, -E-500,5 Ln V) 00's 270 69 W400 W800S W 900 S E (A W V3 U-S 'aim" 11300S E 1300 5 7 ,A W 1700 5 Study Area Boundary Existing Paid Area Short/Mid-Term Growth Area Ul L41 V) 0011 0 E 'A E Sum ............... 0 SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER SHORT- & MID-TERM DOWNTOWN CONSULTANTS GROWTH AREA (FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS) F 1700 S A N W30ON 0 SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER SHORT- & MID-TERM DOWNTOWN CONSULTANTS GROWTH AREA (FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS) F 1700 S A N W30ON .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z z z ■ z z z Temple St. A E 2nd Ave. W South -Temp fSDuth Temple St, eitr W W,100 s— E 100 OSI UU UA E 100 5 MEN", W200s] E 200 S 0S 4 NNW" , n;l W 300, E 300 -W,400,S, —w—w-7E,400 S w W 0 0 ■ N M 102 00 W 500 W 500 5 E 500 S vi Ln =0 E 500 5 W 60D S �2�0) E 600 S 6 9,' W E 700 S E W 800 S E 800 5 W 900 5 v E 900 S WN . . . . . . . . . . Ws EA rs 'A cl 0 0 Ds V, E 1300 5 0 0 0 vi r� 0) V, V1 A 'U 71 'A 181 -41 W 1700 JV11Y 114 E 2100 5 Study Area Boundary Short/Mid-Term Growth Area Mid/Long-Term Growth Area SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER MID- & LONG-TERM CONSULTANTS GROWTH AREA (FUTURE LAND USES) ESui "WL700 S1 W 'A A N Total Number of Meter Locations Identified as Potential Candidates for Removal Cost Estimate Range for Replacement of Meters for... 280 263 Meters Meters $1.4— $1.3— $2.2M $2.1M Ij Number of Meters Needed to Cover Short/Mid-Term Area at 2 Meters per Block Face Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 per Block Face $14M — $3.9M Number of Meters to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 2 Meters per Block Face 310 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 2 Meters per Block Face $le6— $23M Number of Meters to Cover Mid/Long-Term Area at 1 Meter per Block Face* 143 Cost Estimate Range for Installation of New Meters at 1 Meter per Block Face $715k — ,S1.1M Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees ' RATES $2.25 per hour (flat rate for entire system. TIME LIMITS z hours per day (across entire system). HOURS OF 8 AM —8 PM, Mon — Sat (across ENFORCEMENT entire system). 91G DAYS OFMon —Fri. THE WEEK A ZONE Single zone (same rates, hours B CSTRUCTURE across entire paid area). Flat fine structure, lower fines CITATION FINES for some violations than peer city average. SELECTED EXISTING Selected On -Street Violation & Other Violation Metric lmhw� Salt Lake City Overtime Meter $35 Meter Violation* $75 Parking Outside of Allowed $23 Hours "Feeding the Meter" $23 Accessible Space Violation $150 Graduated Fines? No * Section 12,56,150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the Notes presence of a vehicle in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation. Schedule of Selected Fines Future Policies, Rates, & Fees 0 `i►' SUGGESTED ACTIONS Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour (for first two RATES hours), $5 per hour (3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th hour). TIME LIMITS 4 hours per day. Consider lower time limit in some very high demand spaces. Extend to 10 PM in existing paid area. Consider later HOURS OF end time for areas with high late -night demand and ENFORCEMENT earlier end time for areas with low evening demand. 91G DAYS OF Mon — Sat to align with enforcement hours. THE WEEK Tiered or graduated rate structure with multiple A ZONE zones based on demand/activity. Sugar House should B CSTRUCTURE be its own zone with different rate structure. Increase fines to be in line with peer city averages CITATION FINES and Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider graduated fine structure. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Prepared for: Salt Lake City Corporation November 18, 2022 WALKER n =� CONSULTANTS L WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation CON 5 U LTANTS Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction 5 Existing Metered Parking 5 Evaluation of Metered Parking 5 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 6 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 7 Introduction & Study Area 9 Introduction 9 Study Area 10 Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways 16 Existing Metered Parking 17 Historical Systemwide Trends 17 Analysis of Multi -Space Meter Usage 18 Methodology 18 Total Transactions by Multi -Space Meter Location 19 Pay-by-App vs. Multi -Space Meter Transactions 24 Metered Parking Evaluation Key Takeaways 27 Evaluation of Metered Parking 28 Evaluation Criteria 28 Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29 Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 29 Requirements & Thresholds 30 Requirements 30 Thresholds for Keeping Meters 31 Thresholds for Adding Meters 32 Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied 33 Recommendations 36 Adding Meters 36 Removing Existing Meters 36 Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates 38 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Key Takeaways 40 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 41 Short to Mid Term 41 Cost and Quantity Estimates 43 Mid to Long Term 43 Cost and Quantity Estimates 48 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Key Takeaways 51 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 52 WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 1 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation c 0 N S U L T A N T S Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City 52 On -Street Parking Time Limits 52 On -Street Parking Rates 52 On -Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 52 Special Events 53 Overnight Parking 53 "Move -It" Policy 53 Metered Parking Violations and Fines 54 Peer City Benchmarking 55 On -Street Parking Time Limits 55 On -Street Parking Rates 56 On -Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 56 Special Events 57 Overnight Parking 57 "Move -It" Policy 58 Metered Parking Violations and Fines 58 Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways 60 Selected Off -Street Parking Rates & Fees 61 Recommendations & Other Suggested Items 63 On -Street Parking Time Limits 63 On -Street Parking Rates 63 On -Street Hours and Days of Enforcement 65 Special Events 66 Overnight Parking 66 Move -It Policy 66 Violations & Fines 67 Appendix 69 Evaluation of Metered Parking 69 Recommendations 69 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 70 Mid to Long Term 70 Figures and Tables Figure 1. Study Area Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi -Space Meter Locations Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi -Space Meter Locations Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi -Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 —June 2022) Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi -Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 —June 2022) Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi -Space Meter (July 2021 —June 2022) Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi -Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021—June 2022) Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021—June 2022) 11 13 14 17 18 20 21 22 23 23 24 WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 2 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 12. Multi -Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022) Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break -Even Number of Transactions per Year Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category Figure 23. Multi -Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022) Figure 26. Short -Term and Mid -Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid -Term Downtown Growth Areas Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use Figure 30. Mid -Term & Long -Term Growth Areas Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Downtown) Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Downtown) Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Figure 35. On -Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City) Figure 36. On -Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City) Figure 37. On -Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City) Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) Figure 40. Move -it Policies (Salt Lake City) Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City) Figure 42. On -Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities) Figure 43. On -Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities) Figure 44. On -Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities) Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) Figure 47. Move -it Policies (Peer Cities) Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities) Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities) Figure 50. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking) Figure 51. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) - Summary Statistics Figure 52. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking) Figure 53. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) - Summary Statistics Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas 25 29 29 30 30 31 32 32 34 35 35 37 38 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 48 49 49 52 52 52 53 53 53 54 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 61 62 62 62 69 70 71 WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 3 01 Executive summary WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C o N s U L T A N T s Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Introduction Salt Lake City is currently in the process evaluating the multi -space parking meter system to understand existing operating efficiencies, trends in existing meter usage, changes in land uses and density, and how existing hours of operation, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. In total, there were 280 multi -space meters across the system that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. It should be noted that as of November 2022, there were 278 meters in operation. Currently, paid parking is limited to the central business district and immediately adjacent areas, as well as two additional small paid that are not contiguous to the main paid area along "main street" -type corridors located to the east of the CBD. Existing Metered Parking The total number of transactions went down in 2020 but has started to increase again in 2021. Between July 2021 and June 2022, there were 852,998 transactions, down from 1,299,735 from 2015 to 2016. The share of all transactions conducted with pay-by-app, instead of at the meter, has increased from 8% in 2015 to 45% today. Currently, the highest -usage meters were clustered along the 300 S. corridor within the CBD as well as along 100 S. and at certain key intersections. Most meters saw between 1,000 and 5,000 transactions from 2020 — 2021. The average number of meters per block face ranged from 1.80 to 2.74, depending on land use. No clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage was observed. However, a few "hotspots" and "coldspots" were apparent where pay-by-app use was notably higher or lower than average. The pay-by-app share of total transactions was between 41% and 60% for most meters, with only 6% falling under 20% pay-by-app or exceeding 60% pay-by-app. Evaluation of Metered Parking Walker has established different criteria for evaluating whether parking meters should be considered for removal, addition, or keeping in existing paid areas, as well as for determining whether an existing unpaid area may be a candidate for installing meters Criteria established include setting a minimum number of meters per block face and a maximum distance between meters along a block face, determining the minimum number of transactions per year for a meter to be financially self-sufficient, and determining a minimum percentage of transactions that occur at the meter. Using evaluation matrices and associated criteria, Walker has determined specific minimum requirements that should be met for all meters, as well as thresholds for determining whether a meter may be a candidate for removal. The established requirements for all meters are as follows: WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 5 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C O N S U LTANTS Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) • A minimum of two meter per block face with paid parking. • A maximum of 250 feet distance between a meter and the farthest parking space. • That maximum decreases to 150 feet for human services land uses. • For accessible spaces, meters should be located as close as possible to such spaces. The established thresholds for keeping meters are as follows: • A minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at the meter + pay-by-app. • Percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40%. The established threshold for adding meters is if least one meter on a block face sees frequent "congestion." When applying thresholds, 85 of 280 meters do not currently meet the transaction threshold. Also, 9 out of 279 see use of pay-by-app at or above 60%. By land use, the average number of meters per block face that met the transaction threshold ranged from 0.44 for Residential Mixed Use to 2.74 for high -activity areas in the CBD. After evaluating the existing paid area, and after considering established requirements, Walker identified 27 meters that may be candidates for removal. At this time, Walker did not identify any block faces where more meters are needed. Further evaluation is recommended for suggested candidates for removal, such as whether there is accessible parking on the block face. In terms of cost estimates, to replace all 280 existing meters, Walker estimates an initial, up -front cost range of between about $1.4 million and $2.2 million. To replace all meters minus the meters identified as potential candidates for removal, the initial, up -front cost range is estimated to be between $1.3 million and $2.1 million. By moving from 280 to 263 meters, the City would save between 85k and $136k. Potential Expansion of Parking Meters In the short to mid term, there are about 68 developments in or near downtown that are planned or under construction. A contiguous area that encompasses all new developments would represent about a 2.4x increase in the size of the existing metered parking area, or an increase of 488 meters (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $2.4 million to $5.9 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. In the mid to long term, future land use maps for neighborhood areas show potential increases in mid- and high - density residential, commercial, and mixed -use development beyond the area that encompasses known future development planned or under construction. If the City were to create paid parking zones within future mid- and high -density residential, commercial, and mixed -use areas, for all such areas except high -activity commercial, Walker would recommend an average of about 2 meters per block face. For high -activity commercial, Walker would recommend an average of about 3 meters per block face. In the Downtown study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term growth area, about 310 meters would be needed in all (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $1.6 million to $2.5 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 6 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) In the Sugar House study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term growth area, 143 meters would be needed in all (at 1 meter per block face). The cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $715k to $1.1 million, depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range. For this area, Walker recommends 1 meter per block face instead of 2 due to block faces that are much shorter than in downtown. Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Compared to peer cities, in general, Salt Lake City is the only city to have uniform time limits in place for metered parking, to have a flat hourly rate for all paid parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier, to not charge for parking on Saturdays, and to have uniform hours of enforcement in place for all paid areas. Salt Lake City also lacks special event pricing and time limits, and the city's fine for accessible parking space violations is less than half the average fine for peer cities examined and is less than the suggested fine published by the Utah State Court System. Selected recommendations are as follows: • Increase time limit for most paid parking spaces from 2 to 4 hours. • Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour within existing paid area. • Move to a tiered rate structure where the first two hours are $2.50 per hour, the third hour is $5, and the 4th hour is $10. • Expand paid parking into Saturdays, which would align paid parking hours with current enforcement hours across the week. • Extend the enforcement period for all days to 10 PM. • Increase fines for all parking violation types discussed in this study to be more in line with peer city averages and the suggested fines listed in the Utah State Courts' 2022 Uniform Fines Schedule. Other suggested items to consider are as follows: • A tiered or graduated rate structure for some or all paid parking areas. • Increase or eliminate time limits in conjunction with other suggested items regarding parking rates. • Time limits of less than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts • Consider zone -based pricing based on demand patterns, with higher rates in high -demand areas and lower rates in lower -demand areas. o Sugar House should be its own zone when or if paid parking were to be extended to that area. o The existing paid area should be divided into 2 or more zones. o More zones could be added if the existing paid area downtown were to be enlarged. • Adopt a later stop time for enforcement in areas and on days where on -street parking usage is elevated past 10 PM, such as night life areas, and an earlier stop time for enforcement where parking usage decreases after a certain hour, such as office • Establish a special overlay zone around Vivint Arena where special event rates and hours would apply during large events • Increase time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space or block face to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours. • Graduated fine structure where fines increase for subsequent violations within a calendar year. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 7 02 Introduction & Study Area WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation CON s U LTANTS Metered Parking Analysis Introduction & Study Area Introduction In 2012, the City of Salt Lake City began replacing its single-space meter infrastructure with a new system of multi -space meters. In the new system, 1 to 4 meters per block face, along with a handful located along mid - block alleys and in certain high -activity off-street areas, serve all individual paid parking spaces along the block face within paid parking areas. Since multi -space meters were first implemented, downtown Salt Lake City and other key neighborhoods and areas within the City have seen growth, development, redevelopment, and land use changes. These changes have potentially affected on -street parking occupancy and usage habits within existing paid parking areas and currently unmanaged and/or free parking areas. Within the existing paid parking areas, such changes have also potentially influenced usage at existing meters. Some block faces within the paid area may have seen increased use of on -street paid parking, while others have seen decreases. In addition, managed parking technology has dramatically advanced within the last decade. In 2012, the major change of note was the ability for customers to use a credit card to furnish payment, though the system also allowed for the use of payment via a smartphone app. In 2012, such app usage to render payment represented only a small fraction of total transactions. However, over the last decade, the use of pay-by-app using a smartphone as a payment option has grown considerably. For Salt Lake City's multi -space meter system, pay-by- app services are provided through the Passport platform. While the use of pay-by-app relative to other multi - space meter payment methods has increased across the system, the relative increase may be higher within some areas and for some multi -space meters compared to others. While one upgrade to the multi -space system has been performed since the initial installation, the existing contracts for the current system, provided by IPS Smart Meters, are expiring soon. As such, the City is looking to revamp and overhaul its decade -old multi -space infrastructure with a new, state-of-the-art metered parking system. Understanding trends in parking habits and multi -space meter usage, as well as changes in land uses and density that have occurred and may occur in the near future, will help to inform data -driven decisions on changes that can be made to the paid parking system when it is overhauled that will allow the system to operate more efficiently, providing the right balance of multi -space meters for customer use while reducing the cost of operations and maintenance and reducing sidewalk clutter. To help the City understand these trends and changes, and also to accomplish its goals pertaining to the paid parking system, Walker Consultants ("Walker") has been retained to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the City's existing multi -space metered parking system. In addition to evaluating the system to determine where existing meters may be removed or added, if necessary, Walker will also provide a high-level overview of selected existing unmanaged/unpaid parking areas, with recommendations on specific neighborhoods or areas that may need to have multi -space meters installed in the future. These high-level recommendations will be informed by future known land use changes and developments WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 9 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) of note, as provided by the City, and/or development/redevelopment. Also, they will include suggested criteria that will enable the City to identify where and how many multi -space meters could be installed in the future. Walker has also been retained to evaluate existing paid parking rates and fees, including fines for violating existing parking rules relating to paid on -street parking. Also, the hours of operation for the paid parking system will be analyzed. Based on this evaluation and analysis, in conjunction with a review of parking rates, fees, fines, and hours of operation for selected peer cities for benchmarking purposes, Walker will provide recommendations for changes that could help to streamline further and optimize both the existing system as well as any expansions in the system that may occur in the future. Study Area The overall study area for this study is defined by two rectangles that are non-contiguous with each other. One area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 600 West to the west, 200 North to the north, University St. to the east, and 1000 South to the south. This area contains all existing paid/metered parking areas in the City. Neighborhoods entirely or partially falling within this area include Downtown, Central City, Fairpark, Capitol Hill, East Central, Ball Park, Liberty -Wells, East Liberty Park, Greater Avenues, and Glendale. The other area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 700 East to the west, 2000 South to the north, 1300 East to the east, and the 80 Freeway to the south. This study area represents the core of the Sugar House Neighborhood. Figure 1 on the next page depicts the two study areas considered as part of this study, with paid and free parking areas within the study areas shown. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 10 WALKER CONSULTANTS Figure 1. Study Area Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) 3 3• r; �; 184- m w 300 N _ N ■. . . ■ .. . ice. . ■ .-. . ■ ■ ■ ■Ca ■ .�l . ■ ■ . . . z . . . ■ Z ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . RAN -ON ■ ■ . ■ r z z 'A w ■ ff • E 3rd Ave. z+, /!fj 1 � ....��.-. W North Temple 5t. � z Z E 2nd Ave. ■ - m� ■ W South Temple St. E South Temple St. --� �"_' �■ . a W 100 S W 100 S N a N E 100 S E'2100'S = W 200 5 E 200 S I ■— - ■ W 300 5 E 300 5 ■ ■ r W 400 5 0 0 0 �1_86==E 400 S o c W c CDo W1500 W 500 S 0 E 500 S v+ ut E SODS o C M E1500'S n- w600S E600S ■ ■ ■ W 700 S E 700 S W 800 5 E 800 5` ■ ■ W 900 S n E 900 S o m e . 3 ■ m 70 F M ■ CD O L ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ IVIN . . ■ ■ . ��. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . . . . . .i . . . r r . .. . In N M W O W W O C —W'1300'S W 1300 5 _ —_ -- m r, M E 1300 5 W o -- n m o W`1700'S Study Area Boundary Do's E a. NR _ E'2100 1700 S .'.r. O . r.... ..,... S. City Limits ■ y ■ ■ Free Area dUt` Paid Area W..... ...,,.A,,.,, SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER CONSULTANTS TOTAL EXTENT OF STUDY AREA SHOWING PAID AND FREE ZONES N WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 11 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis The existing paid parking areas where existing conditions were evaluated in detail are shown in Figure 2 on the next page. The maximum extent of the main contiguous paid area is 100 North to the north, 400 E to the east, 700 South to the south, and 500 West to the west. In addition, there is paid parking along South Temple St. between 400 East and E Street, as well as along 1300 E. between East 500 and 600 South. These areas are not contiguous with the main paid area or each other. City records show a total of about 280 existing multi -space meters that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. Out of that total, 268 meters are within the main contiguous area, 11 are located in the 1300 E. non- contiguous area, and 1 is located along S. Temple between 400 and 500 East. These 280 multi -space meters serve 1,591 individually numbered paid parking spaces across the system. Of those, 63 spaces are located in the 1300 E. non-contiguous area, and 6 are located along S. Temple between 400 East and E Street. Figure 2 below depicts the paid parking areas and shows existing multi -space meter locations within them. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 12 WALKER CONSULTANTS Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi -Space Meter Locations • Existing Multi -Space Meter W 300 N W 300 N ... . iL p .. .... p .......... . . . ■ 0 0 v m Z Z v rr'17-: E South Temple St. • W 0 0 a H c orth Temple St.��'-'� OE Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) a ■ W [o♦ ■ e m ■ r ■ z w •W South Tempel St. • 3•• • • • • ELoutkTemple*t: W 100 S cwd00 S; •� •• _ • i • • = 0 00�5 • • • • • C 0 •� `�-� • tin w 2110 s• • oil I'** • M sR •• = E 00'S.• • •• •• • • : so LW1300rs • •� •• • • •• f 0*S ••• •• so • •• � , •�� •�� W� �W� W o •_ .51 poi tm a W A 5 • • E 400'S • • _•�86� • .... Study Area - °w 500 s:. _ %* • • % ••*0 • e o0 3 •�- �• Boundary •• 9 City Limits + 70 • • -7-W'600'S- Free Area E'600 5 • * 69 Paid Area -- • x • W700S -E700S SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER LOCATIONS OF ALL MULTI -SPACE METERS WITHIN PAID AREAS N Figure 3 below shows the multi -space meter locations with land uses/zoning overlain. Only land uses for which a block face with at least one multi -space meter is present are shown in the legend. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 13 WALKER CONSULTANTS Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi -Space Meter Locations 1 Iro II N11 �_Met�I • Existing Multi -Space er Selected Land Uses (Zoning) Gateway Mixed Use Secondary CBD DT Warehouse/Residential Residential Mixed Use Urban Institutional CBD P Downtown Support District Public Lands Library Residential Office Urban Center Transit Station Moderate/High Density MF Residential Community Business w to S —4wg3 7'007L Study Area W" oo°s- _ Boundary 7 1 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) ■ ■ + W ■ Z _ ■ ■ ElSo'uth 7emple'St� ■ W ■ oMir ■ 1II 1 Ln �T N ! W c ■ z Iv x ■ 1 iv = S ■ z C � � ■ m z I a ■ E ■ t._ • Z_ ELSouthTempieu LwLoo S _E 100 S • •— • a •_ , _i'� +— EZOS • ools •!� oos • s9 '�7 CD 0 IN • n. -1� m v LI E L City Limits ] I-- =1. I �1� I —� w goo s �— — _ IFI SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER LOCATIONS OF MULTI -SPACE METERS CONSULTANTS N WITH LAND USES/ZONING SHOWN WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 14 03 Existing Metered Parking WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways 0 60% 40% 20% 0% IVA 2015 - 2016 HISTORICAL TRENDS 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2020- 2021- 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pay-by-App Usage im Number of Meters * Number of deployed and operational meters as of August 2022 CURRENT USAGE (2021 - 2022) Selected Land Uses (Zoning) Gateway Mixed Use Secondary CBD DT Warehouse/Residential Residential Mixed Use Urban Institutional Cis Downtown Support District Public Lands Library Residential Office Urban Center Transit Station Moderate/High Density Mr Residential Community Business Total Transactions (Proportional) • 1D 100 • 500 1,0oo . 5,000 L ti 10,000 ... ■ No Data or < 2U E Sooih Tenrole 51. z �r o � p E - Proportional Transaction Volume by Meter and High -Activity Areas WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 16 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C 0 N S U L T A Iv T s Metered Parking Analysis Existing Metered Parking Historical Systemwide Trends When Salt Lake City's existing multi -space meter technology was first implemented, transactions via pay-by-app constituted only a small fraction of total transactions. However, every year since then, the relative share of transactions taking place via pay-by-app has increased relative to transactions at the multi -space meter. Based on monthly transaction and revenue data furnished to Walker by the City dating back to 2015, Walker was able to chart the total overall volume of transactions from year to year and determine the percent share of pay- by-app versus multi -space meter transactions between 2015 and 2022. This data is shown in Figure 4 below. Note that each time period shown is from July through the following June. Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi -Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 —June 2022) 1,400,000 1,299,735 c 1,200,000 0 U N 1,000,000 c m H 800,000 4- 0 600,000 E Z 400,000 m r 200,000 0 1,296,808 1,290,156 1,194,614 811,740 590,428 852,998 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021- 2022 ■ At the Meter ■ Pay-by-App In 2015, pay-by-app transactions represented 8% of the total number. By 2022, they represented nearly half of total transactions. Note that overall transactions decreased starting in 2019 — 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the average revenue per transaction has been steadily increasing. The annual average increased from $2.21 per transaction in the June 2015 — 2016 period to $3.00 in 2021— 2022, with a positive year -over -year increase occurring yearly. It should be noted that the per -hour rate increased from $2.00 to $2.25 per hour in July 2019.1 l.https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/05/08/salt-lake-city-mayor/ WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 17 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRA i Figure 5 below shows total transactions by month, and percent share of multi -space meter versus pay-by-app transactions, for the July 2021—June 2022 period. Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi -Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021—June 2022) 90,000 80,000 70,000 41 60,000 50,000 rf ` 40,000 30,000 20,000 tir f 10,000 0 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan 2021 ■ At the Meter Pay-by-App Feb Mar Apr 2022 0 0 0 May Jun By month, March had the greatest number of transactions while January had the fewest. The total number of transactions for the period ranged from a little over 57,000 to 82,667. Analysis of Multi -Space Meter Usage Methodology For purposes of analysis and comparison of multi -space meters and transactions by individual meter location, it was necessary to examine individual transaction data for each multi -space meter location. Data containing all individual transactions by meter was provided to Walker between July 2021 and June 2022. As a result, this is the period of time for which meter usage analysis by location was conducted. In all, two different sets of data for all multi -space meter transactions were furnished to Walker, described in detail below. One set of data contained, by month, every transaction that took place physically at each individual multi -space meter across the system within the time period for which data was available. In this set, both the individual space number as well as the multi -space meter at which the transaction took place were identified, making it possible to aggregate individual transactions by their associated multi -space meter. Walker then performed analysis using geographical information systems (GIS) software that enabled it to associate transaction information at the multi - space meter level with the spatial location of each meter. The other data set contained all individual pay-by-app transactions across the system within the same period. While data on the total number of transactions that physically took place at the multi -space meter identified both WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 18 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis the individual space number as well as the meter at which the transaction took place, making it possible to aggregate individual transactions by their associated meter, pay-by-app transactions only identified the individual space number to which the transaction is linked, and not an associated multi -space meter. This is because pay- by-app transactions bypass the multi -space meter entirely. As a result, to compare pay-by-app transactions to multi -space meter transactions at the multi -space meter level, and to spatially plot the data in GIS, Walker was required to perform some additional analysis to associate one multi -space meter to every individual parking space. To do this, Walker looked at the total number of transactions associated with all multi -space meters for each individual parking space within the set of data that contained transactions that physically took place at the meter. The multi -space meter/space combination with the greatest volume of transactions per individual space was then used to assign to that space a single multi - space meter that most closely matched or was most strongly associated with the space. For example, if 99% of total transactions for a given space were associated with one multi -space meter, and fewer than 1% were associated with other multi -space meters, that space was assigned the first multi -space meter for all pay-by-app transactions associated with that space. In general, the closest multi -space meter match was likely to be the most convenient and/or closest multi -space meter to a given individual parking space. Transactions associated with other multi -space meters may have been due to, for example, people who started to walk to their destination and made it a block or two before remembering to pay. For such transactions, Walker carried over the transaction to associate with the closest match multi -space meter instead. Total Transactions by Multi -Space Meter Location There was an average of 3,015 transactions per multi -space meter overall (1,671 at the meter and 1,362 pay-by- app for spaces associated with each meter). There was a median of 2,221 transactions per multi -space meter overall (1,277 at the meter and 964 pay-by-app for spaces associated with each meter). Figure 6 shows the total transactions per multi -space meter proportionately across the system, with the size of the circles corresponding to the number of transactions per station. Note that data was not available for ten multi -space meters that were shown to exist according to City data records provided. For this analysis, two additional meters were excluded as the total number of transactions fell under 20. Some or all of these meters may have been newly installed and/or out of service during the time period. Therefore, out of 290 total meters shown in City records, 280 had a number of transactions associated with them greater than 0 and 278 had more than 20 transactions. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 19 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi -Space Meter (July 2021-June 2022) Total Transactions (Proportional) 10 C 100 T_ z E South Temple St. 0 W 0 Q ■ w w w w w w w w w_ � _ O 500 0 ® 1,000 a) O ° • 5,000 !mple'St o ® 10,000 N � z � r U South Temp el St. E"South TemPle St. ■ No Data or < 20 z O O O �c A 0 d?� �3 rn OO Opp a 1( ,� w 100 S o w 100 S O^ �E-1061S ( I O -� o v � 1 L� w 200 s� � ► v ° E z00 s � � _ J \� O m � •V1 WJ W - KI N W 400-5�� �+ E 400 S Cr 0 0 186 O °o 67) W 500 w 500 s �— o oa o� O Q 0 o O E soa. S,j Q . ■ ■ ■ Study Area w 60o s- - . E600 S-� Boundary •r - City Limits W 700 S E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER TOTAL TRANSACTIONS CONSULTANTS (JULY 2021- JUNE 2022) + 1 N The multi -space meters with the highest activity, in terms of the total number of transactions, were found along E. 300 S. between 200 W. and 300 E., and along W. 100 S. between West Temple St. and State St. The two blocks WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 20 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis bounded by 300 S. to the north, 400 S. to the south, West Temple to the west, and State St. to the east saw the highest volume of multi -space meter activity. Other areas with higher usage than others included W. 200 S. between 300 and 400 W., the area around the E. 200 S. and S 200 E. intersection, 100 S. west of 400 W., the area around the South Temple and West Temple intersection, S. State St. south of 600 S., and the 1300 E. non-contiguous paid area. Figure 7 shows the percentage distribution of meters by total number of transactions. Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi -Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021—June 2022) 21% 10/ 10/ 2% 54% ■ Under 10 ■ Between 10 and 100 Between 101 and 1,000 ■ Between 1,000 and 5,000 Between 5,000 and 10,000 ■ Over 10,000 About 24% of multi -space meters reported a total number of transactions (at the meter and pay-by-app) that fell below 1,000. Most multi -space meters reported a volume of between 1,000 and 5,000 total transactions. The remainder reported a volume greater than 5,000, with only 3 multi -space meters reporting a number greater than 10,000. Figure 8 on the next page shows the total transactions per multi -space meter proportionately across the system with land uses overlain. Also, high -activity areas within the CBD have been highlighted with a box. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 21 WALKER CC)NSULTANTS Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning Selected Land Uses (Zoning) Gateway Mixed Use Secondary CBD DT Warehouse/Residential Residential Mixed Use Urban Institutional CBD Downtown Support District Public Lands Library Residential Office Urban Center Transit Station Moderate/High Density MF Residential Community Business o w_100.S O O 0D Oo C, I wzoos zz z E South Temple St. W O c Total Transactions W 300 s (Proportional) 10 n �� C 0 100 w aoo sv n v O S00 oO O 1,000 High -Activity 'i Areas in CBD 5,000 SEEN w Study Area 10,000 Boundary — c No Data or < 20 _ City Limits Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis 400 S U O �O 11 O O E 5000 S E 600 S E 700 5 11 SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER TOTAL TRANSACTIONS WITH LAND USES/ZONING SHOWN N WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 22 WALKER CONSULTANTS By Block Face and Land Use Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 9 below shows the average number of multi -space meters per block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. Note that block faces with at least one multi -space meter that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one single zone were included. Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Gateway Mixed Use Average Number of Meters per Full Block 1.80 2 Secondary CBD 2.00 2 Residential Mixed Use 2.22 2 High -Density Residential 2.00 2 Urban Institutional 2.00 2 CBD 2.18 2 CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3 Public Lands 2.50 3 Library 2.67 3 Downtown Support District 2.50 3 Community Business 2.67 3 Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 2 Overall, the average number of multi -space meters per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 1.80 in the Gateway Mixed Use District to 2.74 for high -activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself overall had an average of about 2.18. Outside the CBD high -activity area, Community Business and Library zones had the highest at an average of 2.67 per complete block face. If generalizing the figures presented above to represent more general land use categories and density, it was first necessary to establish the specific selected land use, as identified by existing zoning within the paid area, that best corresponds to the given general land use category/density combinations. Figure 10 below shows existing specific land uses and zones used to correspond with mid -density and high -density residential areas, non- residential areas, and mixed -use areas respectively. Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category Density Use Category Residential .. — Moderate/High-Density MF Residential NumberAverage r Full pet::= 2.00 Mid -Density Non -Residential Secondary CBD 2.00 Mixed -Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 High -Density Non -Residential CBD 2.18 Mixed -Use Downtown Support District 2.50 WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 23 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Pay-by-App vs. Multi -Space Meter Transactions Figure 11 shows the total transactions per multi -space meter and the share of those transactions for spaces associated with each meter that was conducted via pay-by-app instead of at the multi -space meter. Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021-June 2022) Total Transactions Under 100 101- 1,000 O 1,001 - 5,000 O Over 5,000 ■ No Data %ft F '. Percent - Pay-by-App z Under 20% E south Temple St. 21%-40% 0 4 Q 41%-60% Over 60% - • • � a Iorth-Temple'St. z C 0-1 0& W 100 5 N �y *Jf ,jW.South Ten ple Ste • ram ELSouth. mple*t - - - - ! ALw�Oo 10N • • ■ • • M ae , ..� • "E' �� • •� �' •_= 10� E200S • m*n MM N.i •ter .M • /IN N • •• a3flor+ r s ..a89 ir o•S N • N M N v o W'400,5 � » E-400 5 A� `186, • uv soo S esoo,s? 7 Study Area W Ho s- - - r E 6005 Boundary City Limits - .� W 700 5 , r E 700 S SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER TOTAL TRANSACTIONS & CONSULTANTS N PAY-BY-APP PERCENTAGE WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 24 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis While there is no clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage as a function of percentage share, a few "hot spots" and "cold spots" are apparent. 200 W. between 100 and 200 S., the area bounded by 200 S. to the north, 300 E. to the east, 400 S. to the south, and State St. to the west, South Temple between 200 E. and 300 E., and 300 E. south of South Temple all featured multi -space meters recording over 60% pay-by-app usage. Relatively speaking, areas of low pay-by-app usage included most multi -space meters north of 100 S. west of 200 E. and between 400 S. and 500 S. Figure 12 below shows the total distribution of multi -space meters by the percent share of transactions conducted via pay-by-app. Figure 12. Multi -Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021- June 2022) 3% 3% 7% ■ Under 20% ■ Between 21% and 40% ■ Between 41% and 60% Over 60% Overall, for most multi -space meters, the division between transactions at the meter versus through pay-by-app is relatively even, with the share of pay-by-app transactions ranging from 41% to 60% for 67% of all multi -space meters. Only 6% of all multi -space meters have a pay-by-app percentage falling under 20% or exceeding 60%. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 25 04 Metered Parking Evaluation WALKER CONSULTANTS Metered Parking Takeaways 0 C 1,300 Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Evaluation Key CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS METER Minimum Number of Transactions REQUIREMENTS* z a 2 per Block Face ALM ) Feet Max )istance r L W H * Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts. 60% 0' Maximum Share of Pay-by-App r Transactions • Candidate for Removal • • �'�' B4_. • • • Candidate for Keeping "• � •.. 3 3 tar •• wnonn h.mPle slur. a z • VW S�u1M1 Temple Se, • • • • . • • E Se t�`e�ple 51 •--. • .I • •Q .• W1005 .1 �0115�+�• • •••'.f 4005•�•• •• u • .. • J + .• . I • • : •• ... ram_ Mi. iw`aoo si • ••. a9 i•i •,TOv°�•!� . y.:a"{... 0-11Iv • • rol .. you s N .� 3 • : . fl � • IM '� /a C COOS i�o0 _ e W5005�1"�•- - «� • � • ••E 005 ••� � -�• f5005 ESE10 1 •• •: Candidates for Potential Removal WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 27 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C 0 N S U L T A N T S Metered Parking Analysis Evaluation of Metered Parking Evaluation Criteria To evaluate the existing paid parking area, Walker first needed to establish the criteria by which meters are evaluated. These evaluation criteria can also be used when determining the meter density, or number of meters per block face, in locations the City may deem appropriate for establishing future paid parking areas that currently do not have it. Walker, with the input and agreement of Salt Lake City staff, has established the following criteria for evaluating where meters should potentially be added or removed within existing paid parking areas/block faces, as well as for assessing whether an existing unpaid area or block face may be a candidate for new metered parking. The criteria are as follows: minimum number of meters, distance between meters, number of total transactions, and percent share of transactions that are pay-by-app. The first two criteria are defined as requirements, which should be satisfied regardless of any other factors, while the third and fourth criteria are defined as minimum thresholds. For the threshold -defined criteria, the total number of transactions should be considered the primary criterion, instead of or equally in conjunction with share of Passport transactions, to consider a meter as a suitable candidate for removal. Meters with high usage will still have an absolute high number/volume of transactions at the meter, even if the relative share of such transactions compared to Passport is greater than 50% or 60%. Also, Passport/smartphone app usage is a metric that is more likely to vary depending on the season and other factors. Finally, it is possible that such usage of the app versus the multi -space meter may begin to plateau in the future, with at -meter transactions always representing a certain minimum percentage of all transactions despite smartphone and app saturation in the marketplace. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 28 WALKER CONSULTANTS Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Figure 14 below shows the evaluation criteria for removing meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block faces. Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas Criteria Category Order of Criteria Descri ther Considerations & Notes Minimum Number By removing meter(s), the resulting number of meters of Meters 1 does not fall below an established minimum for the number of meters that is required per block face. By removing one or more meters, the distance from Maximum distances allowed may differ Distance between 2 any parking space along a block face to any meter for certain land uses, such as commercial Meters does not exceed the maximum allowed. land uses offering human services. Number of Total The number of transactions is lower than a particular Transactions 3 established critical threshold. The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking Percent Share Pay- 4 spaces associated with a multi -space meter exceeds a by App certain established critical threshold. Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas Figure 13 below shows the evaluation criteria for adding meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block faces. Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas Criteria Catego atiriority rder of Criteria Descri Other Considerations & Notes Minimum Number M Per block face where paid parking exists, an of Meters 1 established minimum for the number of meters that is required per block face is not met. Distance between Per block face, the distance between a parking space Maximum distances allowed may differ for 2 and a multi -space meter exceeds an allowed certain land uses, such as commercial land Meters maximum. uses offering human services. The number of transactions is higher than a particular Number of Total established critical threshold, and/or wait times during Transactions 3 peak demand times at a meter are causing undue inconvenience to meter users. Percent Share Pay- The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking 4 spaces associated with a multi -space meter falls below by App a certain established critical threshold. Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas Figure 15 below shows the evaluation criteria for installing new meters in existing unpaid areas/along unpaid block faces. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 29 WALKER CONSULTANTS Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) ria Category Order of Priority Criteria Description Considerations & Notes IF There is a change in land use from undeveloped, Assuming that specific meter requirements, Land Use Changes N/A industrial, or low -density residential land uses to such as the minimum number of meters per any combination of commercial, office, block face and maximum distance allowed mid/high-density residential, or retail. between meters, are met Spillover parking is occurring from high parking Alternative strategies to manage spillover Spillover Parking N/A demand land uses/activity centers into adjacent parking could also be considered, such as a lower -density areas, such as residential residential parking permit program. neighborhoods. Requirements & Thresholds Requirements Figure 16 below summarizes the established requirements for evaluating all meters in both the existing paid parking system as well as for determining baseline requirements for new meters in potential future paid parking areas. Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters Criteria Category Requirements Minimum Number of Meters Minimum of 2 meters per block face Distance between Meters Maximum of 250 feet between the meter and parking space (150 feet for human services) Minimum Number of Meters Walker has determined that there should be a minimum of two meters per block face, regardless of the length of a paid parking block face or any other factors. Because this requirement establishes that meters must be located on the same block face, parking meters that may fall within the maximum distance of a parking space but that are located on an adjacent block face, or directly across the street, cannot count towards meeting this required minimum requirement. This minimum of two meters per block face was established with input from Salt Lake City staff, who determined that each paid block face should have at least two meters to provide for redundancy in case one of the meters is out of service or not working correctly. Under such conditions, people who choose to pay at the meter may still do so without having to cross a street. Distance Between Meters If a block face falls within the paid area and has paid parking along the block face, there should typically always be a minimum of at least one multi -space meter per 250 feet of parking frontage within the paid area. For distances beyond 250 feet, the average parker may find that the path of travel to the nearest meter is inconvenient. Even in a scenario where use of pay by app may be encouraged, or where the parker does not have to return to his/her vehicle to place a paid parking receipt on their dashboard, it is recommended that parkers should not have to WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 30 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) walk more than one minute to reach a parking meter. At a conservatively estimated walking speed of 3 miles per hour, it would take just under one minute to access a meter located about 250 feet away. As the standard block face length for a typical Salt Lake City block (within the CBD) is about 660 feet, this means that, in general, there would need to be at least two multi -space meter per block face to satisfy this distance requirement, regardless of other factors. In such cases, the meters should optimally be positioned at even intervals, about 1/4 and 3/4ths up the length of a full-sized block face (660 feet). For longer block faces, more than two may be required. At such intervals, there would be a meter at 165 feet and 495 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the entire block face. This would make each meter about 165 feet away from the farthest parking space. Alternatively, for meters placed 1/3 and 2/3rds up the length of the full-sized block face, there would be a meter at 220 and 440 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face. This would make each meter a maximum of 220 feet away from the farthest parking space, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the entire block face. For block faces with paid parking that services specific land uses, such as human services, that may command a need for closer parking multi -space meters than usual, the maximum distance from a meter to a parking space should be about 150 feet. This shorter distance can make it easier for parkers with mobility issues to access meters and/or ensure that meters are available for populations that may not have pay-by-app technology available to them. For any accessible on -street parking spaces within the paid area, Walker recommends that a meter be located as close to the accessible spaces as possible. Thresholds for Keeping Meters Figure 17 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters. Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters Minimum Number of Transactions Meter usage per meter by block face should be such that the revenue and number of transactions make the individual meter profitable, or at least break-even in terms of cost, while not so high as to cause undue burden on persons attempting to use the meter to pay for parking. From a financially feasible perspective, a multi -space meter should support a minimum of approximately 1,300 transactions annually. This derives from an assumed 3-year return on the initial capital investment in a multi - space meter of approximately $8,000 and an average ongoing operations and maintenance cost of $1,000 annually per multi -space meter. With 260 paid parking days enforced per year, over the 3-year period, each multi - WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 31 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) space meter should generate approximately $14 per day. With an average transaction value paid at the multi - space meter of $2.79, this represents approximately 5 transactions per day or 1,300 per year. Figure 18 summarizes the equation described above that results in the break-even number of transactions per multi -space meter per year, as determined by Walker. Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break -Even Number of Transactions per Year $1k $8k 5 11300 Year Transactions Transactions (260 Days) x (3 Years) 1 Day 1 Year (260 Days) Multi -space meters with fewer than 1,300 associated transactions per year are less likely to generate the minimum revenues necessary to support their initial installation cost and/or ongoing operations and maintenance. This minimum threshold is used as the base for identifying multi -space meters for potential removal. Percent Share Pay-by-App In terms of the percentage of transactions that are pay-by-app versus at the meter, Walker has established the critical threshold at 60% pay-by-app usage. Multi -space meters for which the percentage of pay-by-app transactions is under 60% are meters for which physically paying at the meter is still a popular payment choice. Thresholds for Adding Meters Figure 19 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters. Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters Number of Total Transactions At least one meter on a block face sees frequent "congestion," defined as parkers who need to queue up at the meter in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space. Meters should be added to a block face or area if at least one meter along the block face has a high enough average number of transactions at the meter across the paid parking period per day where paid parking is in effect to where the meter may see "congestion." In this context, congestion is defined as parkers needing to queue up in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 32 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Note that, for this context, only the number of transactions at the meter is relevant, as transactions associated with a meter that take play via pay-by-app do not result in physical "congestion" at the meter. In this study, there were a total of 6,721 at -the -meter transactions at the multi -space meter with the highest recorded number of at -the -meter transactions (Meter #34199). When divided by 260 paid parking days and 12 hours per day where paid parking is in effect, this resulted in an average of 2.15 at -the -meter transactions per hour. While this average does not account for variance per hour in meter usage, the average time it takes to conduct an at -the -meter transaction is likely under 28 minutes. At 10,000 at -the -meter transactions per year, the average number of transactions per hour would be about 3.20, or about one every 19 minutes. It is likely that a single meter would not have frequent "congestion" unless the meter had an average of one transaction every 15 or fewer minutes. Currently, no meter in the existing system sees such a high level of transactions per hour, on average. Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied Figure 20 below shows all multi -space meters in the existing system with the total transaction volume and percent pay-by-app use thresholds applied that were established above. Note that meters are only shown where data for total number of transactions and pay-by-app usage was available. Squares in N indicate that the meter fails the established threshold for the total number of transactions needed for the meter to break even in terms of revenue. In the case of pay-by-app usage, the threshold is expressed in terms of multi -space meter usage, with circles in 0 representing meter usage falling under 60%. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 33 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds l — asp- - 1 Total Pay-by-App Transactions Usage Threshold Threshold E South _T�mpie 5t.--r ■ Under 1,300 , Over 60% W r` Over 1,300 Under 60% R Z 2 � 'm 2 rod. Mort Temple St: �. C o a N _ �W�uth Temp St. W(D ! E South;T mpl St. , "c W 100 5 ^ W! 00 Tr L JO V�J*E10.s O J ■ '',� , ��� Cl� DA CL • J'�J h■ ! r, W'20�5 ■ ❑ L 0 ❑ ] E- 001S &0 • n ] �nr Sao s ❑ — n �J, L � ❑ ❑ ] n ❑ J E 3.0*5 n ■❑ i�l s9 ❑ — `o poi 05 N M ] n n W 400 5 ! E: V E 400'5 lJ �I Y-1�J186� ■ �JJ \�J r ❑ ■ r■ ■ ■ W 500- W 500 S ■0 O E 500 S 69 Study Area ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ W'600'S- - E 600 S Boundary A 69 City Limits ,� OQ W 700 S i T- E 700 5 SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER TOTAL TRANSACTIONS & PAY BY-APP USAGE OVER/UNDER THRESHOLDS N Out of this set of active multi -space meters shown, 85 out of 280 did not meet the 1,300-transaction threshold. Nine meters met the pay-by-app usage threshold (percent of transactions through the pay -by -phone app was at or above 60%). Two meters both did not meet the transaction threshold and met the pay-by-app threshold. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 34 WALKER CONSULTANTS By Block Face & Land Use Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 21 below shows the average number of multi -space meters meeting the 1,300-transaction threshold per block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. When compared with the total number of meters per block face for each given specific land use/zone, the difference between figures can help to highlight selected specific land uses where there may be too many meters or about the correct number, on average, to achieve financial feasibility. Note that block faces with at least one multi -space meter that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one single zone were included. Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone Metered Parking Gateway Mixed Use Numberper Full Average .. Blockisting 1.80 Average •. 2 Secondary CBD 1.22 1 Residential Mixed Use 0.44 0 High -Density Residential 1.00 1 Urban Institutional 0.80 1 CBD 1.69 2 CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3 Public Lands 1.50 2 Library 1.50 2 Downtown Support District 2.00 2 Community Business 2.00 2 Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 1 Overall, the average number of multi -space meters with an annual transaction total equal to or exceeding 1,300 per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 0.44 in the Residential Mixed -Use District to 2.74 for high -activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself had an average of 1.69 multi -space meters per full block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Outside the CBD, Gateway Mixed Use had the highest average at 1.80 meters per block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Figure 22 below shows the average number of multi -space meters per block face that met the transaction threshold of 1,300 transactions per year according to more generalized land uses and densities discussed in the previous section according to the selected corresponding specific land use/zone that best fits the more general category. Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category ThresholdDensity General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face that Meet Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 Mid -Density Non -Residential Secondary CBD 1.22 Mixed -Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 High -Density Non -Residential CBD 1.69 Mixed -Use Downtown Support District 2.00 WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 35 WALKER Salt bake City Corporation C O N S U LTANTS Metered Parking Analysis Recommendations Adding Meters Currently, no meter in the existing system likely sees a high -enough level of transactions per hour, on average, to warrant the need for an additional meter along a block face with existing meters. Therefore, Walker does not currently recommend adding more meters along any block faces within the existing paid parking zone. Walker does recommend that the City consider feedback from citizens, business owners, and paid parking users along a block face in order to evaluate the potential need for additional meters along that block face on a case -by - case basis. If feedback is consistently received that identifies long wait times or queues at a particular meter, the block face upon which the meter is located should be evaluated for the addition of a meter. Removing Existing Meters Given the above established requirements and threshold of 1,300 transactions per year, Walker has evaluated the existing paid parking system by block face in order to identify potential block face candidates for removal of a meter, as shown in Figure 23 below. Note that meter candidates identified for potential removal may not be meters that recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions. For instance, consider an existing block face with three meters that are located about a quarter, half, and three -fourths up a block face where one of the three meters recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions. If the meter not meeting the threshold is the one located either % or % the way up the block face, Walker would suggest that the meter % way up the block face would be the most suitable candidate for removal, even if it recorded more than 1,300 transactions. This is because the removal of that meter would result in more even spacing between meters and a shorter distance from any meter to the farthest parking space on the block face, and therefore better satisfy all the criteria established previously. Also note that the figure below does not account for any on -street accessible parking within the paid system, if any exists. Finally, note that meters for which no transactions were recorded were not included in this evaluation. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 36 WALKER CONSULTANTS Figure 23. Multi -Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) �r— — -.—_� _- ■rrarr�Y=.. �.i 'lw■ ramrn ae .car3��®® ®�,�� � • Candidate for Removal • Candidate for Keeping �' —�:a kit - , ,,�*_� • E3r +` Aft a o a Z W Northlemple•st. z E 2nd Z i i ,'jai fi %W�South Tempfe St • • E South�Temple St. ? • wiDDs �w100s+ • •• Dos �, • •` • •• n �' i plc_ w 200 s• : •i • i s! •••i ?20 �• i • "�. w• ,. M • •0 V 00 -51i . • • •• • • • E 300 5 • N 89 • •.� v it • I 3 M AI to aVlt P `W, W ULra w aao s Ln E40Dg ..�.--.--- • en " �� •• 186 • M W 500 W 500 5 E 500:5• •• E°500^S69 �—E SOO S i 7 W)600 S- Ar � I -tip — � � �` •. i;-_ _ ` — -- '_JJ, .;, — -�. MI 7 SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER CANDIDATES FOR METER REMOVAL ULTANTS PER BLOCK FACE N In all, Walker has identified 27 out of 280 currently deployed and operational multi -space meters that may be candidates for removal, excluding meters with no recorded transactions that may not have been operational and deployed during the time period for which data was analyzed in this study. Note that some of the meters may be WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 37 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation c o N 5 U L T A N T s Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) located off-street and/or in a mid -block alley. In all cases, these represent associated block faces with three or more existing meters where at least one meter does not meet the 1,300-meter transaction threshold. Candidates were selected that appeared to leave the most even spacing between meters on a block face, with meters satisfying the 250-foot maximum distance requirement. Walker recommends that block faces with meters identified as candidates for removal be evaluated further before being considered for removal. Criteria for further evaluation may include whether the block face is to see notable densification or redevelopment in the future that may increase parking use on that block face, or whether the meter is located near a particular institutional use where more meters may be warranted. Also, if accessible parking spaces are located near a meter identified as a candidate for removal, Walker would recommend that the meter remain. A detailed list of the meter locations identified for potential removal is located in the Appendix. Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates Figure 24 below shows the estimated cost range for replacement of the existing meter inventory (deployed and operational meters). Figures are shown for both complete replacement of the entire existing deployed and operational inventory as well as replacement minus the meter locations identified as candidates for removal in the previous section. Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters The estimated cost for replacing all existing 280 deployed and operational meters ranges from about $1.4 million to $2.2 million. However, if replacement were to occur without replacing all 27 meters locations identified as candidates for removal, the cost would range from about $1.3 million to $2.1 million. As a result, total initial, up- front cost savings would range from $85k to $136k. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 38 05 Potential Expansion of Parking Meters WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C O N S U L T A N T S Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Key Takeaways . a. r r ■C-r rp1 r Y Y r� r Y C• r • r• � rnll yt a-'-- E 2nd Ave. 2 1 W South Temple St. E $outh Temple St -3: o W1I00S W100IS a E1005 - W 200 S -y E 200 S SHORT- 1111111 w3°°5 E3005 W 400 S^ o—w--E400 5 q 8 w 500 W 500 sE•500 5 N T� - WGOOS 273 �r269• E 600 5 W 7005 E7005 p$� I'g{kA WBoo s EB00S -"4. .... \T; Study Area Boundary MID- w9°°5 � E Existing Paid Area Short/Mid-Term Growth Area TERM Downtown P�.. � � �.. � • t a. K .m Vf r � .Y.Y ■.Y■ Y Z E 2nd Ave I 3 WSouth lest. E South Temple St. ■W100S W1005 a E1005.,� M W-200.5 E 200 5 — i -00IS E 300 5 E 400 S ■ � I ry m � w W<500 w W500•S E•500S v+ N h W6005 70 69 E•600•S ■ ■ - W 700 5- 0 MID— —Wao°s Y ... StudE Area W 9005 y Aa Boundary ©�E y �' �y ShortJMid-Term Growth Area TO v . ._ Mid/Long-Term Growth Area Downtown LONG- TERM Sugar House WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 40 WALKER CONSULTANTS Potential Expansion Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis of Parking Meters As Salt Lake City continues to grow, densify, and diversify, the City may wish to expand the location(s) where parking meters are installed. In this section, Walker provides a high-level framework for formulating a roadmap for future expansions based on an evaluation and consolidation of future known developments in the short and mid-term, as well as future land uses in the long term, as informed by various applicable sub -area and neighborhood plans. Short to Mid Term The City furnished to Walker a map, current as of July 2022, of known future downtown developments that are under construction, soon to be under construction, or that planned/proposed. Developments range from residential to commercial/retail and are mid -density to high -density in nature. Figure 25 below shows the locations of these various developments. By Walker's count, there are about 68 developments shown. Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022) Source: City of Salt Lake City WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 41 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 26 below shows the existing paid parking areas and study areas for this project along with a contiguous area in yellow that outlines and encompasses the future downtown developments shown above. Note that the area has been drawn such that whole blocks are included if at least one new development is contained within. Figure 26. Short -Term and Mid -Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area W 300 N 04: M a ..... wp ■ r0n ■ ■ ■ . ■ .. ;A . ■cn ■ ......... ■ . ■ . ao a m z z Z �' 1 Temple St.i.. Z E 2nd Ave. �� t A." W South Temple St. 1 E South Temple St. W p E !' ■ .ft. ds• W 100 S W 100 S a N ' E 100a5 : �E l00 S dre� —W�200 S Eii-20025 l ■ W 300 S — E 300>S - O o-W, 00,S o—o E,400'S—p W c ' ■ LrLat° W 500 W 500 5 E,500,5— m • W 600 S 271� '' E1600i5 '. 69 Es• ■ W 700 S R E 700 5 `m W 80o S E 800 S �? = 1� ESun W 900 5 In E c o ,. m � m ' d W13005 E1300,5r_, o o --- bS v v f 181 t 60 W►1700 S E 1700 5 - t E 1740 5 E 100 S ■ ■ ■ ■ Study Area Boundary w� Existing Paid Area y' ' Short/Mid-Term Growth Area CQD SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER SHORT & MID-TERM DOWNTOWN CONSULTANTS N GROWTH AREA (FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS) WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 42 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C 0 N S U L T A N T S Metered Parking Analysis (DRA In all, an area that encompasses all known new development downtown and adjacent to downtown would represent about a 2.4% increase in the number of block faces covered compared to the existing paid parking area shown above. There are about 102 block faces currently that are within the paid area while the growth area represents an area of about 244 block faces as drawn. Also, for each block or partial block within the area, only the block faces interior to the respective block were counted. Block faces on the opposite side of the street, or exterior to the block face, along the periphery of the area were not counted. Cost and Quantity Estimates If the City were to extend the paid parking area to this whole area, it would therefore represent about a 2.4x increase in the size of the paid parking area, not including Sugar House. If assuming about 2 meters per block face, regardless of land use, this would equal to an increase in the total number of multi -space meters in the system of about 488 meters, give or take. If assuming about 3 meters per block face, it would result in an increase of about 732 meters, give or take. As of 2022, the average cost of a multi -space parking meter, including installation and other up -front costs such as hardware, software, and configuration, ranges from about $5,000 to about $8,000, depending on vendor and other factors. These costs do not include ongoing capital costs such as maintenance and software/platform subscriptions. Figure 27 below provides high-level cost range estimates for an expansion of the paid area into the areas shown in yellow in Figure 26. Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown - length block face for all general land uses except high -activity, high -density commercial. It should be noted that the number of meters recommended for new high -density, high -activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result, Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes. Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid -Term Downtown Growth Areas In all, a high-level cost estimate for increasing the size by 2.4x of the current metered parking area, as indicated in Figure 26, would range from about $2.4 million to $3.9 million, assuming 2 meters per block face, and would range from about $3.7 million to $5.9 million, assuming 3 meters per block face. Mid to Long Term Future land uses as planned and displayed in the various neighborhood and sub -area plans that have been officially adopted for all the neighborhood and community areas that are covered by the study areas are also included within the study area. These applicable sub -area, neighborhood, or community plans are the following: WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 43 WALKER CONSULTANTS • The Avenues Master Plan • Capitol Hill Master Plan • Central Community Master Plan Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis • Sugar House Master Plan • Gateway District Land Development and Master Plan In order to provide a framework for understanding the number of parking meters and density that may be required of the future land uses, Walker has evaluated the applicable future land use plans and maps and created a composite of all future land uses across the study areas. This composite is shown in Figure 56 in the Appendix. After compiling the map shown in Figure 56, Walker then dissolved the various land uses, labels, zone/use nomenclatures, and legend/map colors shown in each plan and map into the same common general land use category/density combinations that were used in the Existing Metered Parking section of this report (Figures 10 and 21) in order to make comparison of future land uses across plans possible. Note that only mid -density and high -density commercial, residential, and mixed -use specific categories were considered. A detailed table that displays all specific land use categories and colors used in each of the land use maps shown in the composite above, and the general land use/density category(ies) to which they were associated/matched by Walker, is provided in the Appendix. A map of all future land uses with generalized land use/density categories is shown in Figure 28 on the next page. For purposes of this map, Walker included mid- and high -density land uses that straddled the study area boundaries. For Sugar House, Walker included and mapped generalized land uses falling within a quarter -mile buffer of the study area boundary. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 44 WALKER c0wsuLrAwTs Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated " ° � a w � = v",30"» . Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) uu 91 41 vvnmo sxmS- E - y ,s"" /� " CL " ~.~~~.~~~~~~~~~.~� ~ ~ CD � ~ = 89 = ° ~ 801 Mid -Density Residential � — ve Mid -Density Mixed -Use High -Density Mixed Use 7 a Mid -Density Commercial High -Density Commercial SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USES CONSULTANTS BY GENERALIZED LAND USE CATEGORY N Figure 29 below shows the number of meters that should be considered per full block face for each generalized land use/density combination shown above. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 45 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C O N S U LTANTS Metered Parking Analysis � Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use The average number of meters that meet the 1,300-transaction minimum threshold, as reiterated above, ranged from about 1 to 2 per block face (2.74 average for high -activity, high -density commercial areas). However, since the City has specified that a minimum of two meters per full block face should always be installed regardless of usage or other factors, this means that the number of meters per downtown block face for all general uses and densities should be 2 for all land uses with an average of 2.00 or below. For high -activity, high -density commercial areas, 3 meters per block face are recommended as the average number of meters meeting the transaction threshold is above 2.00 (2.74). It should be noted that for certain institutional and human resource land uses, a minimum of 3 or 4 meters per block face should be installed. Also, as shown in the table, for high -activity areas within the high -density commercial area, the average number of meters per block face where the threshold is met exceeds two. As a result, for such areas, 3 meters per block face should be considered. Figure 30 on the next page shows the existing paid area combined with the short- and mid-term growth area in yellow, as shown in Figure 25 above, along with an additional area that outlines additional mid- and high -density residential, mixed use, and commercial growth areas as determined from the consolidated future land uses shown in Figure 28. These additional areas are shown in orange. In the case of Sugar House, such future land uses that fall within a quarter -mile buffer of the study area were included. Note that future mid- and high -density land uses contained within the study areas for this project do not necessarily account for whether or not the given density and land use falls within an urban or a suburban/car- orientated context. For instance, the medium -density residential located immediately east of the Forest Dale Golf Course, in Sugar House, is an existing suburban -style apartment complex that lacks internal on -street parking and may not be a good candidate for metered parking. As a result, the mid- and long-term growth areas in orange are drawn to encompass only mid- and high -density residential, mixed -use, and commercial future land areas that exist currently with an urban context/typology within the study area, as areas that are not within such a context/typology may not be well suited for paid parking even in the long term. These are the areas within which Walker has considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve the areas. Also, Walker drew the mid- to long-term areas so as to encompass blocks and/or block faces that completely or nearly completely fall under a future mid- or high -density residential, mixed use, or commercial land use. As a result, the growth area excludes some of the mid -density residential future land uses in the eastern third of the WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 46 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C O N S U L T A N T S Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) downtown study area rectangle as these future land uses are interspersed with low -density housing and do not encompass most or all of a block Figure 30. Mid -Term & Long -Term Growth Areas 1N 300 N a E 3 vi in « � z z ,° z i Temple St. z z E 2nd Ave. a `1 WSouth Temple 5t; E South Temple,,5t. D� � J W W-1�) S W 100 S a- E 100 S E SOO S �r�h --W200•S E 200 S ■ W 300 S E 300 S " O 3:-W400.5- E 400 S o 0 r <rGa�p C N M l�D Ob0 �j�J W500 E600 S W600•S 270 69, E 600 S ` f ■ �'1 " ■ E ■ W7D05EJOOS-° �', ■ a W 300 S } E 800-S N E Sun W 9005 3 3 E c n � W 1300 5 ') E 1300 5 0kn 0 0 n n m W 1700 5 E 1900 S E 1700 S ■ ■ ■ ■ Study Area Boundary ya Short/Mid-Term Growth Area W Mid/Long-Term Growth Area 0 SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER MID- & LONG-TERM NTS A GROWTH AREA (FUTURE LAND USES) N WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 47 WALKER CONSULTANTS Cost and Quantity Estimates Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Walker has provided below a high-level estimate for the number of meters that might be installed in the mid- and high -density residential, mixed -use, and commercial areas in the Sugar House and Downtown study area in the mid- to long-term, as informed by the consolidated future land uses. Only the mid- and high -density residential, mixed use, and commercial future land uses included within the orange areas shown in the previous figure have been considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve block faces within the respective areas. Downtown Growth Area Figure 31 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called "block face equivalents," within the main orange area (downtown) by general land use classification. Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Third, frontage of blocks along freeways, viaducts, and other such corridors were excluded. Finally, these estimates do NOT account or consider alleys or some mid -block streets that may occur across the orange area, particularly at the periphery in The Avenues and at the south. Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown - length block face for all general land uses except high -activity, high -density commercial. It should be noted that the number of meters recommended for new high -density, high -activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result, Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes. Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Downtown) Density General Land Use Generalized Approximate Number Category Land Use Color of Block Faces or Block Face Equivalents* Number of Meters Downtown Block 2 per Face 3 * Downtown block face length or equivalent (660 feet) Figure 32 below gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block faces within the defined Downtown growth area at 2 meters per block face and 3 meters per block face. Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Downtown) WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 48 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRA i Walker estimates that there are approximately 155 block faces or block face equivalents within the Downtown mid- to long-term area. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.6 million to $2.5 million. At 3 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $2.3 million to $3.7 million. Sugar House Growth Area Figure 33 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called "block face equivalents," within the smaller orange area to the south (Sugar House), as defined in Figure 30 above, by general land use classification. Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, for some irregular and/or curved block faces, Walker visually estimated the equivalent or approximate number of qualifying block faces within the defined area. Third, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Finally, frontages of blocks along the 80 Freeway were excluded. Estimates are shown assuming both 1 meter per block face and 2 meters per block face. While 2 meters per block face was one requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking, that requirement was determined partly based on the fact that the standard block face length in Salt Lake City is about 660 feet. Standard Sugar House block faces, at 360 feet, are a little more than half that length. Therefore, only one meter per block may be sufficient to serve some or most typical block faces in Sugar House. Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Number of Meters per Sugar House Block General Land Use Generalized Approximate Number of Bloc Density Category Land Use Color Faces or Block Face Equivalents* Face 1 ff ' I 1 '- . Non -Residential 1 1 1 1- * Sugar House block face length (360 feet) Figure 34 gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block faces within the defined Sugar House growth area at both 1 meter and 2 meters per block face. Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long -Term Growth Area (Sugar House) Walker estimates that there are approximately 143 block faces or block face equivalents within the Sugar House mid- to long-term area. At 1 meter per block face, the cost range would be approximately $700k to $1.1 million. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.4 million to $2.3 million. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 49 06 Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Key Takeaways PARKING SELECTED SUGGESTED EXISTING ACTIONS Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour ' RATES $2.25 per hour (flat (for first two hours), $5 per hour rate for entire system). (3rd hour), $10 per hour (0 hour). 4 hours per day. Consider lower TIME LIMITS M ITS 2 hours per day (across y g R entire system). time limit in some very high demand spaces. Extend to 10 PM in existing paid HOURS O F 8 AM — 8 PM, Mon— area. Consider later end time for Sat (across entire areas with high late -night demand orENFORCEMENT system). and earlier end time for areas with low evening demand. u u DAYS OF Mon — Sat to align with Mon —Fri. ® THE WEEK enforcement hours. Tiered or graduated rate structure ZONE Single zone (same with multiple zones based on rates, hours across demand/activity. Sugar House STRUCTURE entire paid area). should be its own zone with A different rate structure. Flat fine structure, Increase fines to be in line with CITATION lower fines for some peer city averages and Utah FINES violations than peer Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider city average. graduated fine structure. WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City Walker researched Salt Lake City's existing metered parking system and documented the following items: on - street metered parking rates, hours of enforcement, time limits, overnight parking, "move -it" policies, and fines for various selected parking violations that pertain to on -street metered parking/paid parking areas. On -Street Parking Time Limits Figure 35 below shows parking time limits for paid on -street parking areas in Salt Lake City. Figure 35. On -Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City) On -Street Time Limits Metric Salt Lake City Time Limits Two hours Mon - Sat. No time limits on Sundays. Hours that Time Limits are In Place By City ordinance, time limits are in place at all times at any multi - space meter parking space or 2-hour time zone. On -Street Parking Rates Figure 36 shows on -street parking rates in Salt Lake City. Figure 36. On -Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City) $2.25 per hour on weekdays. Saturdays and Sundays are free. Motorcycles and accessible parkers are exempt from parking fees. Some green vehicles may qualify for a free parking permit. On -Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement Figure 37 shows on -street hours of enforcement for Salt Lake City. Figure 37. On -Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City) 8 AM - 8 PM Mon- Fri WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 52 WALKER CONSULTANTS Special Events Figure 38 shows special event parking metrics and rates for Salt Lake City. Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) On -Street Special Events Rate & Metric Salt Lake City Ellift Special Event Rates for On -Street Meters? No Event Rate Structure N/A Overnight Parking Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Figure 39 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within paid on -street parking areas in Salt Lake City. Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) "Move -It" Policy A "Move -it" policy or ordinance specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on -street parking space. Figure 40 below shows selected information about Salt Lake City's Move -it policy. Figure 40. Move -it Policies (Salt Lake City) WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 53 WALKER CONSULTANTS Metered Parking Violations and Fines Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 41 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on -street parking violations directly applicable to metered parking in Salt Lake City. Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City) Selected Other's Violation Metric Overtime Meter Salt Lake City $35 Meter Violation* $75 Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $23 "Feeding the Meter" $23 Accessible Space Violation $150 Graduated Fines? No Notes * Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the presence of a vehicle in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 54 WALKER CONSULTANTS Peer City Benchmarking Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) For the topics researched and documented in the previous section, Walker performed benchmarking for six peer cities across the western United States. These cities are Denver, Sacramento, Boise, Austin, Portland, and Seattle. Two of the six peer cities — Portland and Seattle — were selected as aspirational communities that feature metered/paid on -street parking systems that are larger and more complex than Salt Lake City's existing system. Information for peer cities is believed to be current as of August 2022. On -Street Parking Time Limits Figure 42 below shows parking time limits for paid on -street parking areas in the peer cities. Figure 42. On -Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities) On- Street Peer City Limits Boise Austin Portland Metric Vary. Time limits vary from 1 - 4 Time limits vary from In CBD, Tiered hours. Within CBD, time limits 2 hours to 4 hours, 2 hour All metered system. are typically 2 hours. Outside of with some 10-hour All metered limit. spaces are Premium and CBD, time limits are typically 3 - spaces available. In Time In subject to 10- Standard: 2 spaces are 4 hours. Within event overlay areas where Limits subject to 10- Cherry hour time hour limit. areas, a 2-hour time limit goes enforcement extends hour time limit. Creek, limit. Value: 4 hour into effect during events, even to 10 PM, the time 3 hour limit. for spaces that are normally limit becomes 5 hours limit. subject to a longer time limit. after 5 PM. Three zones: Varies. In CBD, 6 zones. Enforcement begins at 8 AM - 10 PM Premium, 10 zones. Hours either 8 AM or 9 AM and ends Standard, Most zones: 8 AM - 8 Mon -Sat. In of enforcement between 6 PM and 10 PM. In Value. PM. In some zones, CBD periphery, vary widely. 1 CBD, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon -Sat, 1 Premium: 8 time limits are in 8 AM - 8 PM zone is enforced PM - 7 PM Sun. Within event AM - 8 PM place until 10 PM and Hours Mon -Sat. In on event days district overlay areas and during Mon -Fri. 10 in others, time limits that Varies. Old only. For all events, enforcement always AM - 5 PM end at 6 PM. During Time In CBD, Sacramento, zones, begins 3 hours before an event Sat. events within the Limits 6 AM - 10 AM - 10 PM enforcement and lasts until 3 hours after the Standard: 8 Uptown and Uptown are In 10 PM Mon -Sun. In begins at 8 AM. event, regardless of typical AM - 8 PM Triangle zones, event Place all other areas In CBD, 8 AM - 6 hours or days of enforcement. Mon -Fri. 10 time limits and rates where PM Mon - Tue, 8 Within event overlay areas, time AM - 5 PM can be in effect metered AM - 12 AM limits are in place during events, Sat. Value: 8 during Sundays and parking exists, Wed - Fri, 11 from 3 hours before an event AM - 6 PM holidays. 8 AM - 6 PM AM - 12 AM Sat. begins and last until 3 hours Mon - Sat Mon - Fri after it ends. only. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 55 WALKER CONSULTANTS On -Street Parking Rates Figure 43 shows on -street parking rates in the peer cities. Figure 43. On -Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities) Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Tiered system. The Graduated system Graduated system by Vary by zone and time of base rate is $1.75 per by zone. length of stay for all day. Morning rates are in hour with 4 meter tiers. Premium: $2 per zones. $2 per hour effect between 8 AM and Each tier represents the hour for first hour, for 1 - 2 hour. Then $3 for hour 3. Rate 11 AM. Midday rates are time limit for parking at $3 for 2nd hour then increases by in effect between 11 AM the base rate. Tiers (Mon -Fri), $0.50 $0.50 per hour for Varies by zone. and 5 PM. Evening rates range from 1+ hour to per hour (Sat). each hour thereafter Non-event ratesand are in effect between 5 PM Varies. In 4+hours. For all tiers, Standard: $1.25 through hour 7. $5 range from $1 8 PM (5 PM and 10 PM most areas, the rate for next hour per hour for first per hour for hours 8 - per hour to $2 in some zones). Morning $2 per after the time limit is hour, $2 for 2nd rates range from $0.50 to hour. $3. For each hour hour (Mon -Fri), 10. First 15 minutes per hour. In $2 per hour. Midday rates thereafter, the rate is $0.50 per hour free. Mopeds and CBD, rate is $2 range from $1 per hour to $3.75. Some long-term (Sat). Value: $0.50 motorcycles typically per hour. $4 per hour. Evening rates meters exist that allow per hour for hours exempt from fea es. range from $0.50 to $2.50 for up to 10 hours of 1 - 2, $1 per hour Also, prisoners per hour. In some zones, parking with a $3 or $6 for hours 3 - 4. For war and Purple Heart parking is free after 6 PM max rate, depending on all zones, first 20 recipients are with no evening rate in location. minutes is free. exempt per Texas effect. state law. On -Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement Figure 44 shows on -street hours of enforcement for the peer cities. Figure 44. On -Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities) Sacramento _'W_B;i_se�� er City Austin 10 zones. Hours of Portland 6 zones. Enforcement Seattle Three zones: Varies. In CBD, 8 enforcement vary widely. 1 begins at either 8 AM or 9 Varies. In the Premium, Most zones: AM - 10 PM Mon - zone is enforced on event AM and ends between 6 CBD, 8 AM - 6 Standard, Value. 8 AM - 8 Sat. In CBD days only. For all zones, PM and 10 PM. In CBD, 8 AM Mon -Sat 8 AM - 8 Premium: 8 AM enforcement begins at 8 AM. AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1 PM PM. In (Noperiphery, PM Mon -Sat. In - ri PM Mon - In CBD, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon - - 7 PM Sun. Within event some zones, enforcement nf Fri. 10 AM - 5 time limits Old Sacramento, 10 Tue, 8 AM - 12 AM Wed - Fri, district overlay areas and between 6 PM Sat. are in place AM - 10 PM Mon 11 AM - 12 AM Sat. during events, AM and 8 Standard: 8 until 10 PM Sun. In all other Motorcycles or mopeds may enforcement always begins AM). In - 8 PM Mon - and in areas where exceed posted time limits, 3 hours before an event Cherry Creek, Fri. 10 AM 5 others, time metered parking but they may not exceed 12 and lasts until 3 hours after 8 7 PM ue: Sat. Value: l limits end at exists, 8 AM - 6 PM hours during any paid the event, regardless of Moonn -Sat. 8 A - 6 PM 8 A 6 PM. Mon - Sat parking session at a paid typical hours or days of Mon Fri only. parking space. enforcement. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 56 WALKER CONSULTANTS Special Events Figure 45 shows special event parking metrics and rates for the peer cities. Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) • Special Events Rate & Metric Denver Sacramento Portland Seattle Special Event Rates for On- Street No Yes No No Yes Yes Meters? Event rates apply during Within event overlay events where more than Event rates apply during 15,000 attendees are areas, meter rates increase $4 per events where more than expected within a designated hour durin g events n 10,000 attendees are special event parking zone. (starting 3 hours expected within the Event Rate During events, an event flat before event until 3 Uptown and Uptown Structure N/A rate applies after the tiered N/A N/A hours after it ends). Triangle zones. During time limit expires. The base There is a flat $0.20 events, between 5 PM and rate for all tiers is $1.75. For Climate and Equity 10 PM, the first 2 hours of Tier 1, the flat rate is $14; for parking are $3 per hour. Tier 2, the flat rate is $15.25; Transaction Fee for Additional hours after the for Tier 3, the flat rate is all parking first 2 are $8 per hour. $13.50. transactions Overnight Parking Figure 46 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within paid on -street parking areas in the peer cities. Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) Overnight Metric Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle Overnight Parking Managed at On -Street Metered Spaces? Yes Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified (Excluding Permit Areas/RPPPs) 10PM-2AM: $1 per hour Overnight Parking Fee 2 AM - 6 AM: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Schedule $0.50 per hour 6AM-8AM: Free WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 57 WALKER CONSULTANTS "Move -It" Policy Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) A "Move -it" policy or ordinance is one that specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on -street parking space. Figure 47 below shows selected information about the peer cities' "Move -it" policies. Figure 47. Move -it Policies (Peer Cities) Ordinancer ove-it Boisemetric rwcramento Yes Unspecified Unspecified Yes Yes "Move It" Ordinance Yes Another block Minimum Distance a 100' One city block Unspecified Unspecified face or 500 One block Vehicle Must be Moved feet How Long Ordinance is 24 hours Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified 3 hours Unspecified In Effect Metered Parking Violations and Fines Figure 48 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on -street parking violations that are directly applicable to metered parking in the selected peer cities. Figure 49 shows the lowest, average, and highest fines for each selected violation. Note that the exact violation labels, definitions, language, and context in each peer city's code for the violations listed may differ; Walker selected the particular violations and fines for each city that are most equivalent to Salt Lake City's respective violations and associated fines. Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities) Selected Violation & Other Denver Sacramento* Boise** Austin' Portland $44 1st Seattle"" Violation Metric offense; $50 Overtime Meter $35 $35 $21 $30 2nd offense, $44 $70 3rd offense. Meter Violation $35 $50 N/A $40 $65 $47 Parking Outside of $35 $40 $26.50 $40 $65 - $95 $47 Allowed Hours "Feeding the Meter" $35 $25 N/A $40 $44 $44 Accessible Space $350 $445 $159 $300 $165 $450 Violation Yes (Overtime Yes (Overtime Graduated Fines? No No No No meter) violations after 1st are $47) * $12.50 *** Fees represent **** Fine schedule ** $15 late standard fine. Fines are notes that there is a Notes mandatory fee for fines reduced if paid early. fine of $47 for surcharge for over 6 months All fines include $5 in "repeated overtime" all violations statutory court costs. violations WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 58 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities) Additionally, according to the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule for traffic -related offenses, as provided by the Utah State Court System, the suggested fine for an accessible parking space violation is $340.2 2 Utah Courts. "2022 Uniform Fine Schedule." Accessed September 19, 2022. https://www.utcou rts.gov/rules/appendices/Appendix_C/U niform_Fine_Schedule.pdf WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 59 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways • Time limits o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a uniform time limit in place for all metered parking areas ■ In 4 of 6 peer cities, the time limit varies depending on area/zone ■ In 2 of 6 peer cities, a tiered rate system is in place that enables stays of up to 10 hours • Parking rates o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a flat hourly rate for metered parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier ■ 4 cities have rates that differ by area/zone ■ 2 cities have rates that differ by length of stay ■ 1 city has rates that differ by both zone and time of day ■ 1 city has rates that differ by both area/zone and length of stay o Salt Lake City is the only city that does not charge for parking on Saturdays in all metered areas ■ 3 of the 6 peer cities have paid parking uniformly in place on Saturdays ■ The other peer cities have paid parking in place on Saturdays only within certain areas/zones 0 4 of the peer cities have paid parking in place on Sundays in some areas/zones and/or during special events • Hours and days of enforcement o Salt Lake City is the only city that has uniform hours of enforcement in place for all metered parking areas • Special events o 3 of the peer cities have different rate and enforcement structures for special events within certain areas • Overnight parking o Denver has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking at metered spaces. o Other peer jurisdictions, as well as Salt Lake City, have no special rules pertaining to overnight parking ■ Overnight parking at metered spaces may either be unrestricted or be subject to "no overnight parking" rules between certain posted hours • Move -it policy o S of 6 peer cities with "move -it" policies explicitly identified require vehicles to move at least one city block or block face away, the same as Salt Lake City o For cities where a time limit was specified, a vehicle cannot park on the same block face again for at least three hours • Violations and fines o All the peer cities observed have higher fines associated with parking outside allowed hours and "feeding the meter." o Salt Lake City's fine for accessible space violations is less than half the average fine for the peer cities 0 2 of 6 peer communities have graduated fine structures in place for some or all violations WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 60 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C 0 N S U L T A Iv T S Metered Parking Analysis Selected Off -Street Parking Rates & Fees Salt Lake City does not directly own, operate, or manage any paid off-street parking facilities for general public use. However, as part of this study, Walker has performed an overview of paid parking rates for privately owned - and -operated off-street parking facilities downtown as a benchmark for which to compare existing on -street parking rates. In all, Walker benchmarked 26 off-street parking facilities that offer paid parking for general public use. Rates researched are shown in Figure 50 below and are current as of July 2022. Note that per -hour figures in cells highlighted in light orange have been calculated from a listed rate other than one hour (e.g., a given rate for 20 minutes was multiplied by 3 to determine the effective rate for 1 hour). Figure 50. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking) Name of Facility The Parkside Tower Address 215 State St. Parking Operator SP+ Hotel? No Garage? Yes F at R te Night/ Evening Rate per 1 Hour $3.00 per 2 Hours $4.00 per Day or Max Rate $10.00 Marriott City Center 220 South State St. Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $20.00 242 East Broadway 242 E. Broadway ABM No No $3.00 $1.50 $3.00 236 Shelmerdine Ct. 236 Shelmerdine Ct. ABM No No $3.00 $2.00 $4.00 Broadway Center 111 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00 175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $3.50 $7.00 Walker Center Garage 160 Regent St. ABM No Yes $2.00 $3.00 $15.00 One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $12 Wells Fargo Center 299 S. Main St. ABM No Yes $3.00 $8.00 Exchange Place 24 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $4.00 South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $5.00 $3.00 $4.00 $10.00 Marriott City Creek 75 W. Temple Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $19.00 175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking Services No Yes $10 $5.00 American Plaza Garage 255 W. Temple Republic Parking System No Yes $4.00 $7.00 222 S. Main Garage 222 S. Main ABM No Yes $4.00 $6.00 $20.00 Hilton Salt Lake City Center 255 W. Temple Hilton Yes Yes $22 City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $8 Grand America Garage 555 S. Main Grand America Hotel Yes Yes $5.00 $9.00 $25.00 Salt Palace Convention Center 100 S. Temple Salt Palace No Yes $15 Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $5.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00 U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont Ave. Diamond Parking Services No No $5.00 $10.00 Sheraton Salt Lake City 150 W. 500 S. SP+ Yes Yes $2.50 $5.00 $15.00 330 W. Temple Lot 220 W. Temple ABM No No $6.00 Hilton DoubleTree 110 W. 600 S. Hilton Yes Yes $15 Royal Wood Lot 250 W. 200 S. ABM No No $5.00 $1.50 $3.00 $5.00 U127 Lot 254 S. 200 W. Diamond Parking Services No No $5.00 $10.00 WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 61 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Figure 51 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 50 above. Figure 51. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) —Summary Statistics Also, Walker has researched the cost of monthly parking permit rates at selected off-street facilities where such parking is offered. While Salt Lake City currently does not offer or provide permit -based parking at any of its paid on -street meters, it could use off-street parking permit rates benchmarked here as a baseline for establishing costs for such permits in the future. In all, 15 downtown parking facilities were researched that offered, as of July 2022, monthly permitted parking, as shown in Figure 52 below. Figure 52. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking) of Facility Address &arkiing OperatorName CBRE 257 Parking 257 E. 200 S. CBRE No Yes $55.00 U071 Lot 256 E. 300 S. Diamond Parking No No $100.00 Services U013 Lot 217 E. 400 S. Diamond Parking No No $100.00 Services U145 Lot 220 S. Edison St. Diamond Parking No Yes $95.00 Services Brighton Bank Lot 311 S. State St. Diamond Parking No No $85.00 Services 175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $120.00 Regent Street Garage 119 S. Regent St. City Creek No Yes $115.00 $132.00 One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $95.00 South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $105.00 175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking No Yes $105.00 Services 170 S. Main 170 S. Main ABM No Yes $85.00 City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $64.00 Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $80.00 U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont Diamond Parking No No $100.00 Ave. Services U075 Lot 279 W. 200 S. Diamond Parking No No $100.00 Services Li Figure 53 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 52 above. Figure 53. Selected Off -Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) — Summary Statistics WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 62 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C o N S u LTANTS Metered Parking Analysis Recommendations & Other Suggested Items On -Street Parking Time Limits Salt Lake City has a uniform time limit of two hours in place for all metered parking. It is the only city, compared to the peer cities examined, that has a uniform time limit. Having different time limits in place can serve to customize or tailor on -street parking to the adjacent land uses the parking serves and account for the particular predominate use case for that parking. Longer time limits can allow for longer parking stays to take place, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for "feeding the meter." Shorter time limits can allow for higher turnover compared to the average parking space for very high demand or high -activity parking spaces. From a revenue generation perspective, time limits for paid parking are mostly unrelated to a space's revenue generation potential. Within an 8-hour period, the amount of revenue generated would be the same (under a flat -rate system) whether the space sees four vehicles parked for 2 hours a piece or whether it sees one vehicle parked for 8 hours. It should be noted that under a tiered system, longer time limits may actually increase revenue compared to a flat -rate system, all other things being equal, since some parkers will pay a higher rate per hour to for longer stays. Recommendations In conjunction with suggested actions regarding parking rates, increase time limit from 2 to 4 hours, at least for most spaces within the paid system. o A tiered or graduated rate structure would take over as the primary mechanism for encouraging turnover and incentivizing shorter stays while allowing longer stays if needed without being in violation. o A maximum time limit should still be in place to discourage overnight parking. Suggested Items for Consideration • Time limits of fewer than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts. On -Street Parking Rates Salt Lake City is a large city and has a high -activity and diverse downtown that continues to grow. It is not exclusively comprised of office land use where activity peaks between 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. The downtown, as well as peripheral areas such as Gateway, feature dining, night life, entertainment, and services land uses, as well as the continued development of multi -family residential. On -street meter rates today in Salt Lake City are universally $2.25 per hour, and Saturdays and Sundays are free. This is despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as differences in parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Also, according to Walker's current understanding, a two-hour time limit for on -street parking still applies on Saturdays despite decreased or no enforcement on Saturdays as parking is free. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 63 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis Every peer city examined has on -street metered parking rates that varied across the system. Rates vary as a function of area or zone, length of stay, tier, or time of day. It should be noted that, for every peer city, the highest rate observed, for at least the first 2 hours, was lower than Salt Lake City's flat rate, with the typical highest rate for the first hour, regardless of tier or zone, being $2 per hour. In the case of parking rates that vary by area, some areas/zones feature higher per -hour rates than others as a function of the land use density and activity levels of a given area. The highest -activity areas within the central business district command higher prices than lower -density areas and/or areas with lower activity levels. The rate, therefore, takes into account the value, or the "market rate," of on -street parking dynamically. An alternative or additional way to account for the "market rate" of a respective metered parking space is to vary the rate by time of day or day of week, acknowledging that parking demand may differ widely based on time of day for all areas/zones, regardless of the peak level of activity for that area/zone. In the case of parking rates that vary by length of stay, rates are designed to escalate according to a tier structure, with lower rates for the first hour or two than for subsequent hours. For these peer systems, a graduated, or tiered, rate system accomplishes the purpose of encouraging on -street parking turnover while also allowing for longer parking stays to take place if needed, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for "feeding the meter. Parking meter rates should, first and foremost, be set at rates that match the cost of services and programs that the revenue is intended to pay for. Also, they should be responsive to users' parking behavior patterns, which can differ widely, and potentially be future proofed for managing other uses of the curb within the paid parking area, such as TNC's (Uber/Lyft), commercial deliveries/loading, or other short-term use. One other important consideration or best practice is that on -street parking should, in general, be more expensive per hour than off-street parking. This is to incentivize longer -term parkers to use off-street facilities, freeing up on -street parking for shorter stays and increasing parking availability for customers or visitors. If on - street parking is not as expensive as off-street parking, on -street parking may be occupied by employees and other long-term parkers who are cost incentivized not to use off-street parking, which typically already operates at a competitive and convenience disadvantage. Parkers of all user groups may elect to "cruise," or circulate around the street grid looking for or waiting for an on -street space to free up instead of using an off-street space. This can cause inconvenience from a time perspective as well as cause traffic congestion and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. While Salt Lake City does not operate a system of city -owned and -operated parking structures or lots intended for general public use, the average per -hour rate for private parking garages is higher than the per -hour rate for on -street parking by more than a dollar. For long-term parkers, a rate structure should be set up such that the rate per hour for stays exceeding 4 hours is higher than the predominate average off-street parking rate, in order to incentivize parkers to use off-street facilities instead for long stays. Recommendations 0 Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour. • Transition to a tiered rate structure where parking rates increase per hour for longer parking stays o In order to disincentivize long-term stays, and encourage such parkers to use off-street facilities, the per -hour rate should incrementally increase until at least the average off-street public parking rate is reached or exceeded. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 64 WALKER CONSULTANTS Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) o For the existing paid parking area, Walker recommends the following tiered rate schedule: ■ $2.50 per hour for the first 2 hours. ■ $5 per hour for the 3rd hour. ■ $10 per hour for the 41" hour. Suggested Items for Consideration Zone -based pricing for on -street rates o Zones should be defined based on parking demand patterns in a given area. ■ Sugar House can or should be a separate zone from the existing paid area (downtown), with its own rate schedule that is commensurate with parking demand patterns in that area. Downtown can or should be divided into at least 2 zones, with 1 zone comprising high - utilization parking areas with higher rates and the other comprising lower -utilization parking areas with lower rates. • A different tiered rate schedule or flat per -hour schedule could be put into place for lower -demand zone(s). Other zones can be added when or if the area of the paid parking system were to increase with their own rate structure. On -Street Hours and Days of Enforcement Hours of enforcement are Monday — Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM in Salt Lake City. As with parking rates, this is also despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as differences in parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Accordingly, every peer city examined also set different hours of enforcement that varied as a function of the same variables used to determine rate structures. Paid parking, as a baseline, should be in place during all time periods where parking activity levels warrant or justify it. Hours of enforcement should correlate with the dynamic rate structure and also be set as a function of the "market rate" and occupancy/behavior patterns. Parking enforcement requires time, labor, and resources. Enforcement should be more concentrated in areas of higher activity and/or higher revenue generation, and hours of enforcement should differ based on the parking activity patterns of a given area. Finally, cost-effective enforcement should be active during all times for which parking restrictions are in place in any paid system/within any paid area. Recommendations • Expand paid parking into Saturdays. o This change would align enforcement hours with paid parking hours across the week. • Extend paid parking to 10 PM within the existing paid parking area. Suggested Items for Consideration Later end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on -street parking utilization remains elevated past 10 PM. o Such areas may include land uses such as night life, entertainment, et cetera. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 65 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C O N S U L T A N T S Metered Parking Analysis • Earlier end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on -street parking utilization may decrease substantially after a certain time, making enforcement non -cost-effective o Such areas may include land uses such as single -use office. For such areas, enforcement may conclude at 5 or 6 PM. Special Events Like some of the peer cities examined, Salt Lake City's downtown features at least one significant generator of special event activity: the Vivint Arena, used for professional basketball as well as for other special events such as concerts. As a result, on -street parking activity along streets immediately surrounding the arena may surge during games or events, which may occur during evenings or on weekends, and/or when parking activity levels are much lower than their typical peak. On -street parking in this area during such events should be reflective of and responsive to such surges, regardless of whether they remain at a flat rate or are set to vary during non-event times. Suggested Items for Consideration • Establish a special zone or an overlay zone around the Vivint Arena where special event paid parking rates and hours of enforcement would apply during large events at the arena. o For special event rates, the existing two-hour time limit for on -street parking would have to be eliminated or modified (See "Time Limits" above). o Walker suggests setting per -hour special event rates for the first 1 -2 hours based on the average per -hour rate for the off-street parking system to provide non-event parkers with an on -street parking option. o For every hour after the 2"d hour, the per -hour rate should be such that the "max rate" for an event should be competitive with event day maxes for the off-street parking system. Overnight Parking Salt Lake City is in line with most peer cities in terms of overnight parking. One city has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking. Suggested Items for Consideration • None at this time. Move -It Policy All peer cities that had a "Move -It" policy in place required vehicles within the on -street metered area to move at least one block face away from where they were previously parked once they reach the maximum time limit. However, all peer cities examined have typical city block lengths that are shorter than downtown Salt Lake City. Also, the time for which a parker may not be allowed to park within the minimum distance that the parker was required to move was at least 3 hours. Typically, a "no repark allowed" time of at least 3 hours helps to discourage drivers from moving to take advantage of longer time limits and/or lower parking rates that may go into effect during the parker's stay. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 66 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C o N s U LTANTS Metered Parking Analysis Suggested Items for Consideration Increase the time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours (See "Time Limits" above). Violations & Fines Fine amounts for parking violations should be set such that they incentivize parkers to not commit recurring violations. For violations that are serious in nature, fines should be set such that parkers are highly incentivized not to commit any violation. While the ultimate goal of parking management is to create and support transportation options for people and support uniform following of all rules and regulations, fines for violations are an important part of encouraging compliance and mitigating the negative consequences of rule breaking. For example, when a parker chooses to overstay a time limit in a parking space, they in turn reduce the ability of that parking space to serve other parkers. When a parker neglects to pay for a metered parking space, they reduce the revenue generated by that parking space and can impact the city's ability to run services and programs paid for by parking revenues. There is undoubtedly a community impact associated with parking violations. If fines are too low, and especially if enforcement is lacking, parkers may simply choose to risk citation and pay a fine instead of moving their vehicles or paying the per -hour rate. Salt Lake City's fine for overtime meters was in line with the peer city average. The city's fine for meter violations was much higher, though the violation may be defined differently than for peer cities and is this not directly comparable. Fines for parking outside of allowed hours and for feeding the meter were lower than the peer city average, though it should be noted that some peer cities had rate and time limit structures such that those violations are partially or completely obsolete in those cities. The major divergence of note was the fine for accessible space violations, where the fine in Salt Lake City was notably less than the average for the peer cities. It was also less than the suggested fine amount found in the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule as published by the Utah State Court System. Two of the 6 peer cities featured some version of graduated fines as a disincentive for repeated offenses. Recommendations Increase fines from the current levels for all 5 parking violation types discussed in the peer benchmarking analysis. o Increases should bring fines for given violations more in line with the peer city averages and/or take into account inflation since fines were originally established. The fine for accessible space violations should be closer to the suggested fine published by the Utah State Courts as of 2022 in their Uniform Fine Schedule ($340). Suggested Items for Consideration • Consider a graduated fine structure where fines increase by at least 25% for subsequent parking violations of the same type that occur within one year of the first such violation. WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 67 07 Appendix WALKER CONSULTANTS Appendix Evaluation of Metered Parking Recommendations Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) Address 245 E 300 S 34520 241 S 200 E 34560 356 W 200 S 34350 432 S 200 E 34133 450 S 300 E 34504 245 E 500 S 34486 447 S 100 E 34453 257 E 200 S 34463 256 E 300 S 34546 254 E 500 S 34501 333 S 200 E 34194 258 S 200 E 34562 249 S Edison St 34544 253 E 100 S 34573 110 W Pierpont Ave 34413 160 N Main St 34429 142 S 200 W 34442 143 N Main St 34434 185 E Social Hall Ave 34478 382 S West Temple St 34583 180 E Social Hall Ave 34477 48 S 200 E 34597 39 W 500 S 34541 55 S 200 E 34588 52 S 300 E 34570 44 W 500 S 34532 59 S 300E 34516 WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 69 WALKER Salt Lake City Corporation C o N s U l- T A N T S Metered Parking Analysis Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Mid to Long Term Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses Neighborhood or Sub AmColor DensityCorresponding General Corresponding Medium Density Land Uses Corresponding Category Residential Specific Land Use from Neighborhood or Sub Area Plan Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Sugar House Medium Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - Low Intensity Business District Mixed Use - Neighborhood Scale Master Plan High Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - High Intensity Business District Mixed Use -Town Center Scale Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Business High Density Commercial N/A Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Central Medium Density Mixed Use Medium Residential/Mixed Use Striped Residential/Office Mixed Use Medium Density Transit Orientated Development Community Master Plan High Density Mixed Use High Mixed Use High Density Transit Orientated Development Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Striped Central Business District Support High Density Commercial Central Business District Medium Density Residential Medium Density (Residential) High Density Residential High Density (Residential) The Avenues Medium Density Mixed Use N/A Master Plan I High Density Mixed Use N/A Medium Density Commercial Business/Commercial High Density Commercial N/A Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential High Density Residential High Density Residential Capitol Hill Master Plan Medium Density Mixed Use Striped (/) Medium Mixed Use Striped (\) Medium/High Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use Crosshatch (X) High Density Mixed Use Medium Density Commercial General Commercial High Density Commercial N/A Medium Density Residential N/A Gateway District Land High Density Residential N/A High Density Mixed Use Striped (\) Residential White Dots Commercial Development and Master Plan* Medium Density Mixed Use Retail Crosshatch (X) Secondary Support Commercial Medium Density Commercial N/A High Density Commercial N/A WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 70 WALKER CONSULTANTS Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas Salt Lake City Corporation Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT) W 300 N i t,. i m 1 -- sow/ ■ r r r r i ■ rpl'r Ypll r Y Y r ■ Y rtL YNJ 'r r r rmy w rrr rt,44 r .. ■ ■ . ■ rLp VV 0 O W W T z z `� z __ Z: Temple'StAve. , / ■ I �W South Temple St. E South Temple St. ! ■ W 100 S W 100`5 a Ex, •E 100 S drd `O i—IL %. '..;hilt' � .. � . I® ��,,,.• � m �, e r W 200 S W 300 S � � E 200 S. E 300 oW 400 S -- o o- E 400 S o o S'dE; ■ trLat�` 0 0 0 0 ■ Qo 4. N M ID 00 GJ 1 =—W 500 N N W 500 S E 500 S n n vt In E 500 S S W6005 270i E6005269) ■ W 700 S- E 700 S ■ a .8006 -s ra .`- E 800 5 ■ f 6 '3 ! �`! ■ E Sun ■� W'900 5 . w" 1. R E 0S ■ � � W ■ E urni ■ 0 4 ■ .-per A __- Y'Y .• m ■ y f rn�; p ■r� -■ 4r yam ■R -�■ram■r rr rrr rl■r- i`i�rr rrr• • rr rrr....• p W Y300 S f v E 130095 o 0 0 0 a OJ k:ac 71.! 181 -W 1700,S i E 1700 S E 1700 S 0 _ � I � :.. . V E21005 .... ..... .... ■ 1p SALT LAKE CITY METERED PARKING ANALYSIS WALKER CONSULTANTS COMPOSITE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAPS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS N WALKER CONSULTANTS 1 71 January 16, 2024 FINANCIAL UPDATE LA $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $(100,000,000) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY 2023 REVENUES -ALL $41.86 M Beyond Budget Spike in Q4 —Sum of Actuals —Cumulative Actuals —Budget Amount —Forecasted amount Major " • 1 Taxes Budget 287,722,785 313,755,533 26,032,748 Charges, Fees, and Rentals 41432,794 5,811,688 1,378,894 Fines 31765,174 31519,515 (245,659) Interest Income 2,071,154 11,814,671 91743,517 Interfund Reimbursement 241431,717 25,857,520 11425,803 Intergovernmental Revenue 4,644,622 5/936/560 11291,938 Licenses and Permits 40,736,114 43,946,510 3,210,396 Miscellaneous Revenues 3,455,828 4,691,828 11236,000 Parking Meter Collections 2,635,475 2,616,329 (19,146) Transfers 54,013,488 51,822,655 (2,190,833) Grand Total 427,909,151 469,772,809 41,863,658 FY 2023 REVENUES -ALL $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY 2023 EXPENSES -ALL $30 M Below Budget Sum of Actuals Cumulative Total —Budget $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $15.7 M Below Budget $200,000,000 Sum of Actuals $ 150,000,000 Cumulative Total —Budget $100,000,000 $50,000,000 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY 2023 EXPENSES - PERSONNEL Public Services � $3,284,279 Public Lands 1 $366,830 Police Department ■ $7,290,705 Office of the Mayor ■ $722,641 Office of the City Attorney 1 $186,243 Justice Court 6193,219 EEL — Human Resources Department $448,783 Fire Department ■ $949,060 Economic Development $229,610 Department of Finance $666,939 Community & Neighborhoods k708,634 City Council Office bi789,622 911 Dispatch Bureaa$66,834 -20M M 20M 60M 80M I00M FY 2023 VACANCY SAVINGS BY DEPT ■ Variance ■ 2023 Amend Budget ■ 2023 Actuals 12 Major • 1 Personal Services Budget 259,355,475 243,685,745 15,669,730 Charges and Services 96,134,386 86,396,601 91737,785 Operating & Maintenance Supply 17,054,952 13,384,844 3,670,109 Capital Expenditures 7,102,802 3,0531081 41049,721 Transfers Out 99,167,639 811117,256 18,050,383* Carry Forward Encumbrances 211157,931 Grand Total 478,815,254 427,637,526 30,019,797 FY 2023 EXPENSES -ALL Beginning Fund Balance Use of Fund Balance Prior Year Encumbrances Estimated Beginning Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Percent Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes Expense Changes Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes Final Fund Balance Percent Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance Adjusted Fund Balance Adjusted Fund Balance Percent ected Revenue FY 2023 YEAR END FUND BALANCE Taxes 2611229,840 2611229,840 258,222,765 (3,007,075) Charges, Fees, and Rentals 5,427,047 5,427,047 6,452,523 1,025,476 Fines 2,561,547 2,561,547 2,567,590 6,043 Interest Income 8/000/000 8/000/000 8/000/000 0 Interfund Reimbursement 26/131/213 26/131/213 26/144/079 121866 Intergovernmental Revenue 5/134/621 5/134/621 5/234/598 991977 Licenses and Permits 40/879/327 40/879/327 40/934/211 541884 Miscellaneous Revenues 4/458,012 41458,012 41478,294 201282 Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0 Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 0 Total w/o Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 364,774,093 (11787,547) Sales Tax Additional 1/2 49,084,479 49,084,479 49,484,479 400,000 Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 414,258,572 (11387,547) FY 2024 REVENUE PROJECTION (NOVEMBER) *Local Sales and Use Tax 1% Referred to as General Sales Tax Funding Our Future 0.5% County Option Sales Tax for Transportation 0.25 : City revenue is about 75% of tax at POS : 61 % of Local Sales and Use revenue : 9% of Local Sales and Use revenue SALES TAX OVERVIEW FY Actuals Actuals Percentage Change Budgets Budgets Percentage Change Over/Under Budget 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 61,864,445 64,897,423 66,324,147 73,778,034 86,532,634 89,090,809 89,500,000 8.31% 4.90% 2.20% 11.24% 17.29% 2.96% 0.46% 58,016,887 62,950,961 65,350,000 62,049,593 68,119,999 83,500,000 92,500,000 6.78% 8.50% 3.81% -5.05% 9.78% 22.58% 10.78% 3,847,558 1,946,462 974,147 11,728,441 18,412,635 5,590,809 (3,000,000) Sales Tax Budget vs Actuals 40,000,000 20,000,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 ■ Budgets _ Actuals 2022 HISTORICAL REVENUE 1*1 2024 July - October Sales Tax Distribution: 75% Sector Name sales credit 2023 Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total sales credit 2024 Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total Retail Trade 11/669/931 886,646 8% 38.6% 11/710/220 40,289 0% 40.0% Wholesale Trade 4,198,147 553,381 15% 13.9% 3,581,373 (616,775) 12.2% Accommodation and Food Services 3/790/277 6741979 22% 12.5% 31920,095 1291817 13.4% Manufacturing 2/182/771 231,529 12% 7.2% 1,925,191 (257,580) -12% 6.6% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1/235/755 (160,637) -12% 4.1% 1/248/372 121617 1% 4.3% Information 1,380,392 93,315 7% 4.6% 11265,843 (114,549) -8% 4.3% Other Services (except Public Administration) 880,333 (5,635) -1% 2.9% 840,602 (39,731) -5% 2.9% Utilities 829,472 151,120 22% 2.7% 8831431 53,959 7% 3.0% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 861,274 118,225 16% 2.9% 876,139 14,866 2% 3.0% Construction 8411073 4011516 91% 2.8% 5381670 (302,403) -36% 1.8% Admin and Supp, Waste Mgmt and Rem Services 745,371 73,762 11% 2.5% 694,893 (50,478) -7% 2.4% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 5421381 2191462 68% 1.8% 4851467 (56,914) -10% 1.7% Total 29,1571177 31237,662 12.5% 96.5% 271970,296 (11186,881) -4.1% 95.6% SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION (OCTOBER)