Goals  and  Objectives

Historically,  the  City  of  Burlington  has  approached  parking  from  the  same  perspective  as  the  majority  of   American  cities.  While  much  has  been  made  of  ground-­‐breaking  initiatives  in  municipal  parking  planning   and  management  in  cities  like  Boston,  New  York,  Washington  DC,  Chicago,  San  Francisco,  San  

Diego,   Portland   (OR)   and   Seattle,   the   vast   majority   of   municipalities   in   America   still   see   parking   as   a   necessary   utility   to   support   downtown   commerce   and   development;   something   that   needs   to   be   provided  at  no  or  low  cost  to  facilitate  higher,  better  activities.    

As   is   common   in   many   municipalities,   management   of   various   parking   tasks   in   Burlington   has   been   assigned  to  different  agencies  within  the  municipal  government  according  to  the  perceived  similarity  of   tasks  within  those  departments.  Parking  planning  and  the  development  of  new  parking  assets  has  been   placed   under   the   Department   of   Planning   &   Zoning,   as   this   task   is   seen   as   an   extension   of   that   department’s   natural   mission   and   powers.   The   Department   of   Public   Works,   the   agency   tasked   with   managing   the   majority   of   public   assets   and   services   (i.e.   streets,   sidewalks,   water,   sewer,   waste   management,  etc.),  has  traditionally  been  assigned  the  management  and  maintenance  of  public  parking   assets,   as   this   was   perceived   as   another   utility.   The   Police   Department   was   tasked   with   parking   enforcement  and  adjudication  as  an  extension  of  their  mission  to  the  community.  This  distribution  of   tasks  created  some  efficiency  in  execution,  but  also  created  a  parking  system  where  core  functions  were   fractured  and  subject  to  conflicting  missions.    

Burlington   is   prepared   to   move   away   from   the     philosophy   of   parking   as   a   base   utility,   including   the  

‘more  is  better’  perspective  and  its  attendant  policies.  Following  the  cues  of  comparable  communities   like  Boulder  (CO),  Ann  Arbor  (MI),  and  Boise  (ID),  Burlington  is  prepared  to  shift  perspective  and  start   treating   parking   as   a   mechanism   for   economic   and   community   development,   adopting   a   ‘smart   use’  

philosophy,  which  is  a  step  away  from  the  traditional  ‘car  is  king’  mentality  and  a  movement  towards  a   mission  where  driving  and  parking  is  one  in  an  array  of  transportation  choices.    To  that  end,  Burlington   has  established  the  goals  of  improving  the  customer  experience;  creating  a  sustainable  parking  system;  

and  fostering  a  vibrant  downtown.  

The   City   of   Boulder   provides   the   clearest   definition   of   goals   and   objectives   for   the   parking   and   transportation   system   through   the   Access   Management   and   Parking   Strategy   (AMPS)   plan.     The   plan   includes  regular  updates  on  initiatives  in  process  and  completed  and  upcoming  public  hearings.  The  Ann   Arbor   DDA   also   has   a   clear   mission   statement   and   provides   an   annual   “State   of   Downtown   Report”  

which  outlines  the  agency’s  objectives  and  activities  for  the  prior  and  coming  years.  In  both  cases,  the   goals  and  objectives  outlined  by  each  agency  are  defined  and  measurable.  

The   Charlottesville   Parking   Center   stated   goals   are   broad,   with   no   defined   initiatives   associated   with   them  or  measurable  objectives.  Similarly,  the  DDOT  does  not  state  a  clear  mission  or  set  of  objectives,   although  there  are  a  number  of  studies  provided  on  their  website  which  allude  to  both.  

The  LFCPA  does  provide  a  clear  Mission  and  Vision  Statement,  as  well  as  a  listing  of  guiding  principles   applied  in  the  development  and  execution  of  programs  and  services  provided  by  the  Authority,  but  no   measurable  objectives.  Similarly,  the  CCDC  provides  a  clear  Mission  Statement  and  well-­‐defined  goals,   as  well  as  an  annual  report  of  the  agency’s  activities.  

4.3. Local  Influences  and  Considerations  

Of  the  peer  cities  identified,  DESMAN  believes  that    Boulder  (CO),  Ann  Arbor  (MI)  and  Boise  (ID)  best   exemplify  the  kind  of  success  in  parking  management  that  Burlington  aspires  to  achieve.  Of  the  

 Page  54  of  146  

three,  only  Boulder  retains  parking  management  services  within  City  government.  Ann  Arbor  has  ceded   the   majority   of   parking   management   over   to   its   Downtown   Development   Authority,   a   public   agency   created  by  State  law.  Boise  practices  a  hybrid  approach,  wherein  a  public/private  consortium  (Capital   City   Development   Corporation)   provides   off-­‐street   parking   infrastructure,   private   companies   provide   day-­‐to-­‐day  management  of  off-­‐street  assets  under  contract,  the  City  provides  on-­‐street  parking  services   including   enforcement   and   residential   permit   programs,   and   the   Downtown   Association   is   the   organizing  agency  that  acts  as  a  liaison  between  the  other  parties,  the  private  sector  and  the  general   public.   The   common   theme   in   all   three   instances   is   that   the   founding   philosophy   for   each   system   is   based  upon  and  oriented  toward  community  development².    

Of  the  three,  we  believe  that  the  Ann  Arbor  DDA  model  may  be  the  most  advantageous  to  Burlington,   although  the  Boise  model  may  be  the  most  politically  achievable.  Under  the  Ann  Arbor  model,  the  City   would  create  an  independent  Authority  to  assume  responsibility  for  the  development,  operations  and   management  of  all  public  parking  assets  (on-­‐  and  off-­‐street),  as  well  as  serve  as  the  central  resource  for   all   parking   and   transportation   information   and   initiatives   for   downtown   Burlington,   and   the   liaison   between   the   private   sector,   local   transit   agencies   and   transportation   advocates,   and   the   Police   Department  which  would  retain  enforcement  and  collections  duties³.  Under  the  Ann  Arbor  model,  the   Authority  would  fund  itself  largely  from  the  creation  of  a  BID  and/or  TIF  district  initially.  

We   believe   the   Ann   Arbor   model   would   be   more   appealing   to   the   private   sector   as   it   will   create   an  

“arm’s   length”   relationship   between   the   City   and   the   agency   managing   parking   and   transportation   services  in  downtown,  but  less  appealing  to  the  municipal  government.  Transfer  of  ownership  of  public   parking   assets   will   be   both   financially   and   politically   difficult;   the   assets   are   distressed   (~   $9M)   and   depending   on   the   legal   structure,   the   City   could   lose   input   regarding   pricing,   hours   of   operation   and   standard  of  care  for  the  duration  of  the  agreement  with  the  Authority.      

The  Boise  model  is  very  similar  to  Ann  Arbor  in  a  number  of  ways,  including  that  it  uses  TIF  to  fund  new   facilities  and  parking  revenue  to  fund  operations;  its  independent  public  parking  agency  was  created  by   state  legislation;  it  subcontracts  day-­‐to-­‐day  operations  to  a  commercial  parking  operator;  it  advocates   for   alternative   modes;   it   defers   on-­‐street   parking   programs   to   City   agencies   and   promotes   privately   owned   parking   assets;   and   its   parking   agency   is   governed   by   a   board   appointed   by   the   Mayor   and   confirmed  by  City  Council.  

One   piece   of   the   Ann   Arbor   model   that   could   be   improved   upon   in   Burlington   is   the   coordination   of   information-­‐sharing   regarding   the   parking   and   transportation   network.   There   are   four   different   business/neighborhood  associations  within  the  DDA  which  appear  to  have  only  a  loose  affiliation  with   the  DDA.  The  basic  needs  of  a  visitor  or  commuter  are  met  by  these  organizations,  but  there  is  limited   cross  promotion  and  no  easily  discernable  central  resource  to  go  to  for  information  on  all  aspects  of  the   existing  parking  and  transportation  system.  This  is  a  marked  contrast  to  Boulder  Parking  Services,  which   has   created   a   centralized   resource   to   link   various   agencies   and   services   in   a   central   location.     The                                                                                                                            

2  Boulder   Parking   Services   is   a   subdivision   of   the   City’s   Downtown   &   University   Hill   Management   Division,   the   Ann   Arbor   Downtown   Development  Authority  was  created  by  the  Michigan  State  legislature  to  promote  redevelopment  of  Michigan  downtowns  afflicted  by  suburban   flight   in   the   1970’s   and   the   Boise   Center   City   Development   Corporation   “focuses   on   the   revitalization   of   Boise’s   downtown   and   its   neighborhoods  through  urban  design  and  development  initiatives.”  

3  Permitting  would  also  be  retained  under  City  Zoning  &  Planning.  

network  is  also  segmented  in  Ann  Arbor,  with  on-­‐  and  off-­‐street  services  being  managed  by  different   entities.  

Parking  and  transportation  services  are  also  segmented  in  Boise,  but  the  Downtown  Boise  Association,  a   501c6  non-­‐profit  funded  by  BID  assessments,  acts  as  the  information  clearinghouse  for  the  system.  This   information  clearinghouse  is  lacking  in  Ann  Arbor  and  would  be  an  important  component  for  Burlington   to  consider.    The  DBA  is  also  the  primary  conduit  for  collaboration  between  the  business  community,   private   parking   facility   owners   and   operators,   and   the   CCDC   by   inviting   representatives   for   all   these   organizations  to  sit  on  their  Board  of  Directors.  The  DBA  provides  a  comprehensive  listing  of  both  public   and  private  assets,  transportation  alternatives,  special  programs  and  aggressive  promotion  of  Municipal   Parking   Services,   the   CCDC,   private   parking   operators,   and   local   transit   and   alternative   transportation   providers.   To   the   end   user,   this   provides   the   perception   of   a   seamless   system   and   a   balanced   presentation  of  transportation  mode  choices.    

We   do   not   believe   the   Boulder   model   is   achievable;   it   is   our   understanding   that   the   City   lacks   the   finances  to  bring  multiple  functions  (i.e.  operations,  management,  enforcement,  public  relations,  etc.)   under  one  newly  created  agency.  We  would  worry  about  budget  impacts  under  this  scenario,  as  well  as   where  this  agency  would  be  housed  under  the  City’s  current  structure.