Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES OSHKOSH PARKING UTILITY COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 PRESENT: Harold Buchholz, Mary Murken, Jay Ratchman and Jim Stapel STAFF: Christopher Strong, Transportation Director Jennifer Weigand, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Chairman Stapel called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Murken moved to accept the August 5, 2009 minutes. Mr. Ratchman seconded the motion. Motion carried (4-0). FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Strong reported the parking ticket revenue was above the year-to-date projections. He noted he has been working with Director of Finance Peggy Steeno on putting together a more formal update on outstanding liabilities, operating deficit, etc. That information is not available at this time but he will mail it out when it becomes available. Ms. Murken moved to accept the financial reports. Mr. Buchholz seconded the motion. Motion carried (4-0). UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. REQUEST FOR UNRESTRICTED PARKING IN OTTER AVENUE LOT. Mr. Paul Esslinger, 2350 High Oak Drive, would like the 90-minute parking restrictions in this parking lot removed. He said that every day it is a circus with motorists moving their vehicles from one space to another and/or erasing tire chalk marks. He has talked with other business owners in the area and he said they would like to see the restrictions lifted. He expressed concern that as the ticket revenue increases, the interest in shopping at these businesses decreases. Mr. Stapel questioned if it’s mostly people operating businesses or customers parking there. Mr. Esslinger replied it is both. Mr. Stapel said in the 400 Block West lot it is mostly the owners and employees, who do not want to pay the monthly parking permit fee, who park in these spaces. Mr. Stapel said as a Parking Utility Commission member, he would rather get the revenue from selling permits to someone who is going to park there every day. He said in his lot the 90-minute parking covers the needs of most of their customers. He felt you have to be careful for what you wish for because if you have no restrictions you may not have any parking available for customers. PARKING UTILITY MINUTES Page 2 SEPT 9, 2009 Mr. Esslinger felt with the type of businesses in this block, he didn’t feel they would be a flood of people parking there. Mr. Ratchman said that, with unrestricted parking in this lot, he could send his employees to this lot to park, which would allow him to save money from not having to buy parking permits. He said there is a need to move vehicles so customers can find a close parking space to the businesses. Mr. Ratchman said another concern he had was when Main Street is being reconstructed, construction workers might park there all day long. He wished other business owners would have come to this meeting to voice their opinions. Mr. Stapel said he had forwarded an e-mail to Mr. Strong from Mike Skoglind, Schmitt Title, who was opposed to this request. (Letter was presented to the Board at 8/5/09 meeting) Ms. Murken asked what the utilization numbers are in this lot. Mr. Strong replied that for the blue- banded meters the usage is 65% and for the 90-minute meters approximately 46% usage. Mr. Esslinger said he was requesting that only the 90-minute parking restriction be lifted, not the permit parking. Mr. Stapel did not want to set a precedent. He believed it would be harder for the utility to meet its revenue requirements if it is easier for people not to buy permits. He added that if the utility instituted unrestricted parking in this lot, it could eventually be in every lot. He believed that this request was mostly concerned with employees and business owners using these spaces. Mr. Esslinger noted that as property owners, they pay city taxes as well as taxes associated with the BID. If the unrestricted parking became a problem, the business owners supporting this would be their worst enemy and would have to deal with the consequences. He said he would not have any problem with a 4- hour parking restriction (i.e. allowing people to park for free for four hours). Mr. Ratchman questioned why should the business owners in the 200 Block be any different than he, who has to buy permits for his employees. He felt you would have chaos without rules. If the owners and the employees park in front the stores, the businesses will lose customers because there is no place to park. Through the permits and 90-minute limit on free parking, we are controlling where employees can park and we don’t irritate the other merchants next to us. Mr. Esslinger said another way to look at this is maybe the property owners should petition the City to take over the parking lot, get a special assessment and than regulate the parking in the lot. Mr. Stapel felt it was their responsibility to provide parking for employees and customers. He felt the circumstances in the 400 Block are no different than the 200 Block. Mr. Strong said the Parking Utility does have the ability to dispose of parking lots but that it would have to be further explored. Mr. Stapel said that if the Utility went that route, we would have to have parameters so as to be fair to all the property owners. Mr. Buchholz was opposed to unrestricted parking but questioned if the Board would consider a 4-hour parking restriction. Mr. Stapel felt a 4-hour parking restriction is essentially free all day parking. Mr. Ratchman said there is no way Scott Footit, BID parking enforcement officer, could get back to this lot in less than 2 hours. He added that depending on when a motorist parks their vehicle, they could park there all day free. He feels it is almost impossible to get a parking ticket with a 4-hour restriction. Mr. Esslinger refuted this statement. He said it appeared to him Mr. Ratchman is more worried about the 400 Block parking lot than the 200 Block parking lot. Mr. Ratchman said he resented that remark. PARKING UTILITY MINUTES Page 3 SEPT 9, 2009 Mr. Buchholz moved to adjourn for a 5-minute break. Ms. Murken seconded the motion. Motion carried (4-0). Mr. Buchholz moved to reconvene the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 4:31 p.m. Mr. Buchholz moved to accept the request for unrestricted parking in the Otter Avenue Lot. Ms. Murken seconded the motion. Motion lost (0-4). NEW BUSINESS 2. REALLOCATION OF SPACES IN THE 400 BLOCK EAST PARKING LOT. Mr. Strong explained the new lot parking space arrangement. Mr. Buchholz questioned if there were a miscalculation of spaces needed, could we realign them. Mr. Strong replied, “Yes”. Ms. Murken asked how the spaces would be marked. Mr. Strong said the signage would be by address. If there is an enforcement issue, they would have to call the Police. Mr. Stapel was opposed to signage by address. He suggested spaces be signed by a number so as not to set a precedent. Ms. Murken moved to accept the reallocation. Mr. Ratchman seconded the motion. Motion carried (4-0). 3. REALLOCATION OF SPACES IN HIGH AVENUE LOT. Mr. Strong gave a brief explanation on this item. Mr. Stapel was concerned that Sparr Assoicates would have enough leased spaces during the reconstruction. Mr. Footit replied that Sparr Associates lease spaces for their employees and customer parking is available on High Avenue. Ms. Murken moved to accept the reallocation. Mr. Ratchman seconded the motion. Motion carried (4-0). 4. CONVERSION OF THREE LEASED SPACES TO PERMIT PARKING IN 400 BLOCK WEST LOT. Mr. Footit noted these three leased spaces are not being used. By converting these spaces to permit parking, the parking would be more uniform when it comes to enforcement. Mr. Ratchman moved to accept the request. Mr. Buchholz seconded the motion. Motion carried (4- 0). 5. DISCUSSION ON VACANCY ON PARKING UTILITY COMMISSION. Mr. Ratchman said he had approached Julie Karner, who he thinks would be a good candidate for the Board. Mr. Strong suggested Mr. Ratchman offer her an application. PARKING UTILITY MINUTES Page 4 SEPT 9, 2009 STAFF STATEMENTS 6. UPDATE ON 400 BLOCK EAST RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT. Mr. Strong gave the Commission an update on this project’s progress. He said the contractors have encountered some delays due to utility issues but they are still projecting to open the lot in November. Mr. Footit noted that since construction began, compliance has improved. 7. REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE. Mr. Strong said we have several parking lots that need maintenance work and he suggests hiring a parking consultant to conduct an assessment of the maintenance needs so we can prioritize what we need to do from a capital improvement program perspective. Ms. Murken asked if this could be done through city staff. Mr. Strong replied the Engineering Department would have the expertise but they don’t have the time. However, he would contact them about this. Mr. Buchholz suggested tabling this item for now because it is not an urgent matter. Ms. Murken felt long range planning was a good idea. Mr. Stapel said it makes sense to have plan but there is no urgency for it at this time. 8. HANDOUTS ON CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE PARKING PROGRAMS. Mr. Strong provided the Commission members with some materials from a consultant about effective parking programs. He said that some of the information in the materials could be valuable for a system our size. Mr. Buchholz felt these were valuable handouts. AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING None. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business to come before the Parking Utility Commission, and upon being duly moved and seconded (Buchholz, Ratchman), the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.