HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-11-005 - Parking Organization Review & Business CaseREPORT TO:
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
January 17, 2011
SUBMITTED BY:
John McBride, Director Transportation Services, 741-2374
PREPARED BY: John McBride, Director Transportation Services, 741-2374
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
Wards 9 & 10
DATE OF REPORT:
January 5, 2011
REPORT NO.:
INS-11-005
SUBJECT: PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW – PARKING
ENTERPRISE BUSINESS CASE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That a Parking Enterprise be approved in principle as outlined in the attached business
case, subject to final 2011 budget approval;
That monthly parking rate increases of 10% annually between 2011 and 2014 inclusive be
incorporated into the annual budget;
That a net tax levy increase of 0.51% in 2011 be referred to the 2011 budget review;
That the following key principles of a Parking Enterprise be adopted;
a) That all assets and liabilities associated with the expansion, maintenance,
operation, ownership and potential sale of the City’s parking facilities
become those of the Parking Enterprise;
b) That an opening surplus of $1,070,000 in 2011 be funded from the City’s
Capital Budget in order to complete scheduled structural repairs in the
Duke & Ontario Garage;
c) That an annual dividend in the amount of $1,750,000, plus annual
inflationary increases, be paid to the City from the Parking Enterprise;
d) That the Parking Enterprise annually retain all surplus funds in the
appropriate reserve accounts in order to fund all future operating, capital
improvement and expansion costs related to the municipal parking
operation;
e) That one (1) Parking Manager position (full-time), one (1) Transportation
Demand Management Coordinator position (full-time) and one (1)
ì ó ï
Transportation Planning Project Manager position (full-time) be approved;
and further,
f) That annual funding for the implementation of the Cycling Master Plan in
the amount of $200,000 and Transportation Demand Management initiatives
in the amount of $200,000, as may be approved by Council, be funded from
the Parking Enterprise.
BACKGROUND:
On May 20, 2003, Council approved a report FIN-03-021 which discussed various possible
goals for the provision of parking in the Downtown. As a result of that discussion, it was
resolved:
“That the following principles be approved with respect to the City’s parking portfolio:
(a) the City should continue in the parking business to ensure control;
(b) parking should operate as an enterprise providing a dividend to the City (i.e. parking
authority), as a return on investment;
(c) parking subsidies should be considered an ‘economic development tool’ and be
accounted for accordingly; and further,
That staff compile historic data on costs and financing for Downtown parking and develop
various models for the provision of parking in the Downtown for consideration at a future
Finance and Corporate Services Committee meeting.”
Council has made a commitment to support a dynamic and more intensified Downtown. The
creation of a Parking Enterprise will support this initiative by allowing Council to maintain control
over parking and fee issues as well as the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
initiatives. There is a fine balance between parking supply, parking pricing and encouraging
people not to use single occupant vehicles. Many of these initiatives will require a paradigm shift
and may take many years to implement.
The development of a comprehensive Transportation Master Plan, which is in progress, will
integrate the provision of parking, TDM initiatives and land use policies to support higher
densities in the Downtown. Although Kitchener is supporting a move towards rapid transit,
changes are not likely for 5 to 10 years. The proposed Regional rapid transit system will be
located in Kitchener’s Downtown core but will not address existing parking deficiencies or the
increased demand from greater intensification.
The changing context of the Downtown is increasing pressure on the parking supply. The
redevelopment of various properties in the Downtown area all contribute to an increased
demand for parking. These redevelopments are positive aspects for Kitchener, they, and the
spinoff demands that they generate, are adding to the parking concerns.
The Parking Organizational Review Business Case reviews three alternatives, which includes
do nothing, establish a parking enterprise and establish a parking authority.
ì ó î
REPORT:
The Parking Organizational Review Business Case discusses three alternatives and reviews
their relative benefits and implications related to the following:
Develop a user pay system that will result in a minimal or no levy impact to the tax based
operations
Provide an annual dividend to the City
Be supportive of urban intensification and redevelopment
Incorporate and be supportive of Transportation Demand Management principles
Position the City to maintain the existing parking infrastructure and expand when
warranted
Parking Organizational Alternatives:
1) Distributed and Tax Supported Parking Model – Do Nothing Alternative
Parking Operation (Administration and Operation sections of the business) and
Transportation Planning (Capital Programs, Developments and Studies) reports to
Infrastructure Services Department;
Enforcement remains in Community Services Department and Ticket Fine Collection
remain in Financial and Corporate Services Department;
Capital funding flows from the City and operating funding is generated from user fees,
along with an average net revenue of $745,000 is returned to the City;
2) Consolidated & Self-Sustaining Parking Model - Parking Enterprise Alternative
Parking Operation (Administration and Operation sections of the business) and the
parking component of Transportation Planning (Capital Programs, Developments and
Studies) forms an enterprise within Infrastructure Services Department;
Enforcement remains in Community Services Department and Ticket Fine Collection
remain in Financial and Corporate Services Department;
Capital programs are funded through the restructured Parking Enterprise; and
A dividend paid to the City will be negotiated depending upon the scope of the capital
program undertaken by the Enterprise.
3) Arms Length & Self-Sustaining Parking Model - Parking Authority Alternative
Parking Operation (Administration and Operation sections of the business) and
Transportation Planning (Capital Programs, Developments and Studies) within
Infrastructure Services Department convert to a Parking Authority.
The Authority is governed by a board and is a stand-alone enterprise responsible for
planning, purchasing, constructing, maintaining and managing the entire City’s parking
portfolio;
ì ó í
City would retain ownership of the Parking assets, the Authority would retain funds for
management and future growth but will pay an annual dividend to the City. The Authority
would have the ability to purchase property and construct capital assets;
All decisions made by the Authority would be with the approval of the Board; and
The annual budget and grants (if any) would be approved by Council of the City of
Kitchener.
In addition to the above three options, the option of selling the Parking Operation to a private
company was considered, but ultimately discounted. Upon investigation it was found that the
City parking operation was less costly than the private operation and was mainly related to the
profit margin associated with a private company.
One of the main advantages of retaining the parking operation in house is ensuring Councils
ability to control the balance between a profit centre and a public service. While the goal of an
Enterprise is to cover all operating and capital costs and return a small profit, Council retains the
ability to adjust rates and programs in response to public demand, fluctuations in the economy
and growth patterns. This flexibility is not always as important to a profit oriented private
operation.
Assessing Alternatives
In developing a business model for the parking operation, consideration was given to a number
of factors including technical expertise, knowledge of parking business practices, financial
sustainability and growth potential. The business plan addressed a number of issues including:
Current funding & operating issues
Mandate of a Parking Enterprise
Administrative and operating structure
Changes and resulting impact on the City’s organizational structure
Financial overview and projection of capital and operating expenditures and revenues
Financial impact due to a change in transfer payments to the City’s general revenue
Capacity to finance the construction of one or more parking structures
The Do Nothing Alternative was discarded since it did not address Councils direction that Parking
should operate as an enterprise providing a return on investment.
The Parking Authority Alternative, while it could effectively manage and grow the parking operation,
removes much of the control from Council at a time when strategies on the environment, Downtown
development, parking and the Transportation Demand Management initiatives require coordination.
The Parking Enterprise Alternative is being recommended as the preferred operating model since it
addresses Council’s objectives, is financially sustainable, provides effective management and
support of the parking operation, provides far greater integration with other transportation initiatives
and gives Council the greatest amount of control over policies, programs and rates.
The Parking Enterprise will form a key component of the Transportation Master Plan, which is
currently being developed. Many of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives
are dependant and positively influenced by parking policy, pricing and availability. Likewise the
Cycling Master Plan will benefit from the interrelationship between traffic, parking, TDM, walking
ì ó ì
and the broader transportation network. As such, the Parking Enterprise allows for the funding
for implementation of both the Cycling Master Plan and TDM initiatives.
Resource Requirements
Regardless of which operating alternative is chosen, additional staff resources will be required.
In order to effectively manage the Parking Enterprise and implement the Cycling Master Plan,
Transportation Demand Management program and develop other strategies and initiatives
supportive of the policies to be developed in the Transportation Master Plan, additional staff
resources will be required. These functions will include:
Manager of Parking
Development of supporting policies and business practices, and reporting to
o
Council as needed
Development of capital repair programs ie garage structural monitoring and
o
repair
Capital expansion – managing the construction of two existing parking structure
o
projects with two additional garages expected within the next two years
Development of customer based programs and initiatives
o
Dedicated management of the Parking Enterprise as a business unit
o
Transportation Demand Management Coordinator
Implement the Cycling Master Plan and Transportation Demand Management
o
Program
Both programs require a public paradigm shift to move this City towards a less
o
auto oriented society and will include the development of policy, programs,
infrastructure and education
Both City and private initiatives will be implemented through these programs
o
Transportation Planning Project Manager
Major transportation studies, both City and Regional
o
Municipal street light program
o
Major parking studies
o
Research and analytical support for transportation, parking, engineering and
o
planning for transportation initiatives
In summary, it is recommended that one (1) Manager of Parking position (full-time), one
(1) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator (full-time) and one (1)
Transportation Planning Project Manager position (full-time), be approved so as to
enable the implementation of the Parking Enterprise, Cycling Master Plan,
Transportation Demand Management program and support of all transportation areas in
2011.
The Manager of Parking and Transportation Demand Management Coordinator
positions will be fully funded from the Parking Enterprise. The Transportation Planning
Project Manager will be equally funded from the Parking Enterprise, the Development
Charge fund and street lighting capital projects accounts.
ì ó ë
These positions have been included as part of the Parking Enterprise Business Case and have
been reflected in the 2011 budget.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
The implementation of a Parking Enterprise addresses a number of strategic goals including;
Continue with innovative economic development strategies, including a focus on cluster
development, urban vitality and employment lands;
Continue with economic strategies as a solid approach to redeveloping the Downtown’s
economic health and well-being; and
Strive to ensure long term corporate financial stability and fiscal accountability to our
taxpayers.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Without question, the biggest challenge is how to fund the Parking Enterprise while minimizing
impact on the tax levy. Historically the parking operation has contributed considerable funds to
the City’s general revenue. These have ranged from a small deficit in 2000 to a projected net
profit of $1,423,000 in 2010, excluding subsidies. The average net revenue generated over the
past 11 years is approximately $745,000 annually, excluding subsidies. Staff have investigated
ways of minimizing the impact of removing a portion of this revenue source in order to provide a
sustainable operation that will fund all operating, maintenance and expansion needs of the
parking operation.
In determining the feasibility of the Parking Enterprise, the following financial principles were
considered:
Dividends to the City will result in a minimal or no levy impact to the tax based
operations.
Dividends to the City will be consistent and will be adjusted for inflation annually.
All future parking related capital expenditures will be the responsibility of the enterprise.
The enterprise will not budget for a deficit in any year of operations as this is inconsistent
with the Municipal Act.
Staff evaluated various options to mitigate the levy impact of converting parking to an
enterprise. These options included a combination of the following:
Monthly parking fee increases ranging from 3% to 10% annually
Dividends to the City ranging from $1,400,000 to $2,000,000
Different levels of parking related development charge revenue being allocated. These
levels ranged from partial to full allocation of Development Charges to the Parking
Enterprise.
Based on the four principles outline above and the evaluation of various alternatives, the
conversion of the parking operations into a sustainable and self-sufficient parking enterprise is
feasible.
ì ó ê
The recommended option for the Parking Enterprise includes fee increases for monthly
customers at a rate of 10% for the first 4 years of operations, a dividend to the City of
$1,750,000 adjusted annually for inflation and allocation of parking related development charge
funding of approximately $5,989,500. Staff are also recommending that $1,070,000 be
included as seed funding to the Parking Enterprise in 2011 to offset the membrane replacement
costs for the Duke and Ontario Garage which is currently budgeted for in the City’s 10 Year
Capital Forecast. This option also allows for the funding of $5.25M towards the Charles &
Water Garage.
The attached business case further outlines the details of the recommended option including the
cash flow for the enterprise for the next 10 years.
All future operating and capital costs related to parking will be funded through the Parking
Enterprise operations. Starting in 2011, the Parking Enterprise will pay a dividend to the City in
the amount of $1,750,000. This dividend combined with funding of all future capital costs by the
Parking Enterprise is expected to result in a net tax levy increase of 0.51% in 2011.
CONCLUSION:
The Parking Organizational Review recommends the establishment of a Parking Enterprise.
The analysis indicates that full cost recovery is achievable, future developments can be
supported and that an annual dividend can be paid to the City. This model also gives Council
the greatest control over the future direction of the parking operation.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO
Infrastructure Services Department
ì ó é
Infrastructure Services Department
Jan 5, 2011
Parking Organizational Review
Business Case
BUSINESS CASE- PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó è
Table of Contents
Section 1: Executive Summary...........................................................................................3
Section 2: Background........................................................................................................7
Purpose..............................................................................................................................7
Current Situation.................................................................................................................7
Opportunity.........................................................................................................................8
Section 3: Project Description.............................................................................................9
Objective.............................................................................................................................9
Scope..................................................................................................................................9
Out of Scope.......................................................................................................................9
Assumption.........................................................................................................................9
Stakeholders.....................................................................................................................10
Section 4: Strategic Alignment..........................................................................................11
Section 5: Environment Analysis......................................................................................12
Other Municipalities..........................................................................................................12
Section 6: Analysis of Alternatives....................................................................................13
Part A: Responsibility for Parking Functions.....................................................................13
Part B: Discussion of Alternatives.....................................................................................14
Sample Organizational Chart: Parking Enterprise within a City department....................17
Sample Organizational Chart: Parking Authority..............................................................20
Part C: Further Consideration of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3..................................................21
Part D: Conclusion of Analysis of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.................................................21
Section 7: Project Risk Assessment.................................................................................23
Risk of Project and each Viable Alternative (Not including Status Quo)...........................23
Risk of Not Proceeding with Project (Status Quo)............................................................23
Section 8: Economic Impact Analysis...............................................................................25
Quantitative Analysis – Financial Cost & Benefit:.............................................................25
Section 9: Conclusions & Recommendations...................................................................31
Conclusions......................................................................................................................31
Section 10: Next Steps.....................................................................................................32
Council Direction:..............................................................................................................32
2
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ç
Section
1
Executive Summary
Parking Organizational Review
The purpose of the business case is to address Council’s direction of 2003 in adopting the principle that Parking
should operate as an enterprise providing a return on investment. This business case discusses three
alternatives and recommends the preferred model of a Parking Enterprise.
The three alternatives are:
1. Distributed & Tax Supported Parking Model – Do Nothing Alternative
Parking Operation (Administration and Operation sections of the business) and Transportation
Planning (Capital Programs, Developments and Studies) reports to Infrastructure Services
Department;
Enforcement remains in Community Services Department;
Ticket and Fine Collection remain in Financial and Corporate Services Department;
Capital funding flows from the City;
A surplus from Parking Operations ofapproximately $2,413,000 in 2009 was returned to the City’s
revenue stream
Fine revenue resulting from parking tickets issued in the downtown parking lots in 2009 is
approximately $320,000.
2. Consolidated & Self-Sustaining Parking Model – Parking Enterprise Alternative
Parking Operation (Administration and Operation sections of the business) and the parking
component of Transportation Planning (Capital Programs, Developments and Studies) forms an
enterprise within Infrastructure Services Department;
Enforcement remains in Community Services Department;
Ticket and Fine Collection remain in Financial and Corporate Services Department;
Capital programs are funded through the restructured Parking Enterprise; and
A dividend paid to the City will be negotiated depending upon the scope of the capital program
undertaken by the Enterprise.
3
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïð
3. Arms Length & Self-Sustaining Parking Model – Parking Authority Alternative
For the purposes of this business case, Parking Authority is defined as:
1) an Arm’s Length organization that is governed by a board in a similar manner to Centre
in the Square or the Public Library;
2) a stand-alone Authority responsible for planning, purchasing, constructing, maintaining
and managing the City’s entire parking portfolio;
3) a member of Council sits on the board; and
4) City would retain ownership of the Parking assets.
Parking Operation (Administration and Operation sections of the business) and the parking
component of Transportation Planning (Capital Programs, Developments and Studies) within
Infrastructure Services Department convert to a Parking Authority;
The Authority would manage the parking facilities and related assets currently owned and operated
by the City of Kitchener;
The intent of the Authority would be to provide customer service, maximize the annual return on
parking operations and ensure its long-term sustainability;
Provided with a start-up stipend by the City, the Authority would retain the funds for management
and future growth but will pay an annual dividend to the City;
The Authority would have the ability to purchase property and construct capital assets;
All decisions made by the Authority would be with the approval of the Board; and
The annual budget and grants (if any) would be approved by Council of the City of Kitchener.
Each alternative is discussed in detail, in the business case.
In addition to the above three options, the option of selling the Parking Operation to a private company was
considered, but ultimately discounted. Upon investigation it was found that the City parking operation was less
costly than the private operation. This was due mainly to the profit margin associated with a private company.
The fact that all our parking facilities are fully automated minimizes our staffing costs and allows for the
development of service and maintenance expertise with just a few staff. Major structural repairs and maintenance
items such as snow plowing are already tendered to the lowest bidder.
One of the main advantages of retaining the parking operation in house is ensuring Councils ability to control the
balance between a profit centre and a public service. While the goal of an Enterprise is to cover all operating and
capital costs and return a small profit, Council retains the ability to adjust rates and programs in response to public
demand, fluctuations in the economy and growth patterns. This flexibility is not always as important to a profit
oriented private operation.
Changing Environment of Downtown
Council has made a commitment to support a dynamic and far denser downtown. The creation of a Parking
Enterprise will support this initiative by allowing Council to maintain control over parking and fee issues as well as
the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) initiatives.
4
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïï
The changing context of the downtown is increasing pressure on the parking supply. Wilfred Laurier University,
School of Social Work has moved its campus to downtown Kitchener and with the opening of the University of
Waterloo School of Pharmacy additional staff and students are in the core. The Kaufman and Eaton lofts have
added an urban living mix into the downtown area and additional lofts are being developed in the Arrow Shirt
building. The redevelopment of the Tannery and other properties in the area all contribute to an increased
demand for parking. Although these living and working demands are positive aspects for Kitchener, they, and the
spinoff demands that they generate, are adding to the parking concerns.
The development of a comprehensive Transportation Master Plan, which is in progress, will integrate the
provision of parking, TDM initiatives and land use policies to support higher densities in the downtown. There is a
fine balance between parking supply, parking pricing and encouraging people not to use single occupant vehicles.
Many of these initiatives will require a paradigm shift and may take many years to implement.
Although Kitchener is supporting a move towards rapid transit, changes are not likely for 5 to 10 years. The
proposed Rapid transit system will be located in Kitchener’s downtown core but will not address existing parking
deficiencies or the increased demand from greater intensification. The parking problems have a more immediate
need and require solutions.
Loss of parking spaces over the past few years due to redevelopment of two surface parking lots has created
increased demands especially in the west end of the core. These lots represent 523 parking spaces that have
already or will in the near future be lost. While the Centre Block is still in operation, all or part of it could be lost
next year to the development of the City Centre Project. The loss of the Epton site to the development of the
School of Pharmacy and School of Medicine has eliminated a large surface lot that served the west end of the
core. A portion of the Bramm St Yards will be redeveloped for surface parking upon the relocation of operations
to the CMF to temporarily meet the parking demand.
In June of 2008, Council approved a new 500 space above ground parking garage to be located at the northwest
corner of Benton and Charles Street which is currently under construction. The addition of this garage will support
the growing demands in the downtown which includes the new provincial courthouse. This garage is scheduled
to open in early 2011.
Council has also approved the construction of a 412 space underground structure in the Civic District that will
support a number of needs including the new Provincial Courthouse, Library expansion, Regional office
consolidation and Centre in the Square evening use. Construction is anticipated to be completed by the fall of
2012.
5
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïî
Conclusion:
This business case is recommending that the most viable option is to form a Parking Enterprise within
Infrastructure Services Department because the enterprise model supports a user pay philosophy and the overall
goal of eliminating tax supported subsidies over time.
It is recommended:
1. That a Parking Enterprise be approved in principle as outlined in the attached business case, subject to final
2011 budget approval;
2. That monthly parking rate increases of 10% annually between 2011 and 2014 inclusive be incorporated into
the annual budget;
3. That a net tax levy increase of 0.51% in 2011 be referred to the 2011 budget review;
4. That the following key principles of a Parking Enterprise be adopted;
a) That all assets and liabilities associated with the expansion, maintenance, operation, ownership
and potential sale of the City’s parking facilities become those of the Parking Enterprise;
b) That an opening surplus of $1,070,000 in 2011 be funded from the City’s Capital Budget in order
to complete scheduled structural repairs in the Duke & Ontario Garage;
c) That an annual dividend in the amount of $1,750,000, plus annual inflationary increases, be paid
to the City from the Parking Enterprise;
d) That the Parking Enterprise annually retain all surplus funds in the appropriate reserve accounts
in order to fund all future operating, capital improvement and expansion costs related to the
municipal parking operation;
e) That one (1) Parking Manager position (full-time), one (1) Transportation Demand Management
Coordinator position (full-time) and one (1) Transportation Planning Project Manager Position
(full-time) be approved; and further,
f) That annual funding for the implementation of the Cycling Master Plan in the amount of
$200,000 and Transportation Demand Management initiatives in the amount of $200,000, as
may be approved by Council, be funded from the Parking Enterprise.
6
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïí
Section
2
Background
Parking Organizational Review
Purpose
The purpose of the business case is to address Council’s direction of 2003 to adopt the principle that Parking
should operate as an enterprise providing a return on investment. This business case is a discussion of the
preferred model for the Parking functions.
Past History
The Kitchener Parking Authority was established in the mid 1950's to; provide, operate, control and expand
the availability of parking in Downtown Kitchener. During the Authority's tenure, the Duke and Ontario
Parking Garage was constructed and opened in 1967. The Authority was in operation until approximately
1973, at which time its operation was transferred to a City Department. In 1980, the Parking Operation was
merged with Traffic under the Transportation Services Department and was operated as one division until
the Council reorganization of 2001.
In 1988, the Parking Section of the Transportation Services Division was declared a Parking Enterprise by
City Council. This designation required that the Parking Section be self sustaining and totally fund all
operating expenses as well as capital improvements and future developments. The Parking Enterprise
existed until 1994. A number of issues during these years, including the introduction of GST on parking
fees, first hour free parking in cashier facilities and other initiatives resulted in the Parking Enterprise
operating in a deficit position. When this continued, Council chose to have the Parking Enterprise revert to
a City funded operation.
Current Situation
The City is experiencing significant pressure and demand for long term monthly parking. A Parking study
completed in 2005 confirmed the immediate need for two additional parking structures. While the study was
conducted 5 years ago, the study is still valid as the City is experiencing the same problems only on a larger
scale as more businesses and residential development are locating in the downtown.
The City’s parking portfolio had recently been consolidated within the Development and Technical Services
Department and now falls within the Infrastructure Services Department. Resolving parking issues had, at times
been difficult due to the dual reporting structures for Parking Operations and Transportation Planning. The
Transportation Planning Section, reported to Development and Technical Services, and was responsible for
research, planning and major capital works. Parking Operations section previously located within Community
Services, Enterprise Division, was responsible for the administration, business development and operational
aspects of parking. Bylaw Division, reported to Corporate Services, provided control through enforcement and
the Finance Department played a role in processing revenue from parking ticket fines. This multi-divisional
approach, especially with the planning and operating components, had not been efficient, as it applies to
business management decision making and corporate initiatives. Since the Parking responsibility had been
fractured, reporting to different departments, parking issues and management had become somewhat complex
and less coordinated. In the spring of 2008 the Parking Operations was brought in to the Development and
7
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïì
Technical Services Department thereby allowing for a closer, more efficient working relationship. In late 2009,
Parking Operations was incorporated back into Transportation Planning.
Opportunity
In 2003, Council adopted the following principles relative to the City’s Parking portfolio:
The City should continue in the Parking business to ensure control;
Parking should operate as an enterprise providing a return on investment;
Parking subsidies should be considered economic development tools and be accounted for
accordingly.
As a municipal enterprise, any debt incurred by the Parking portfolio would be funded through user rates.
Currently, capital expenditures for Parking Operations are funded from the current tax pool. Separating the
Parking portfolio from the tax-supported budget has the potential to improve the management and business
operations for the program over the long term. It could also reduce the overall property tax burden as future
capital costs will no longer be funded through the tax base. The Enterprise may, in fact, be able to pay either a
fixed or variable dividend to the tax-supported budget.
The City has an opportunity to create a new solution for a more efficient business unit. By deciding to create a
Parking Enterprise in 2003, Council initiated the investigation of a better, more efficient parking management
model that can proactively deal with current and future parking needs. Forming an enterprise would be the next
logical step in the evolution of the parking business.
The chart below shows the financial figures for Parking Operations over the past 11 years and how the net
revenue has grown. An enterprise would build on this surplus and protect the City from fluctuations in capital
budget funding. However, it must be acknowledged that subsidies were accounted for beginning in 2005.
Summary of Parking Income/Expense
20002001 2002 200320042005 20062007 200820092010
Budget
Revenues 1,607,4371,989,804 2,186,247 2,204,6432,328,8903,417,070 3,687,6383,918,1804,321,0974,405,8504,687,838
Expenses1,667,8591,703,866 1,792,784 1,566,7191,574,2061,807,694 1,785,4801,927,0941,926,9931,992,8512,112,160
(60,422)285,938393,463637,924754,6841,609,3761,902,1581,991,0862,394,1032,412,9992,575,678
Please note:
1) Parking Enforcement revenues/expenses are NOT included in the above numbers.
2) Starting 2005, the Parking Enterprise revenues reflect recognition of parking subsidies.
3) Capital expenditures are not include in the above numbers.
8
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïë
Section
3
Project Description
This business case examines the following three alternatives and concludes with a preferred solution.
1. Distributed & tax supported parking model – do nothing alternative;
2. Consolidated & self-sustaining parking model – Parking Enterprise alternative;
3. Arms length & self –sustaining parking model – Parking Authority alternative.
Objective
To determine the best model for the City of Kitchener in developing the City’s parking operation.
Scope
The business case includes:
Examination of parking issues related to the Parking Operations, Transportation Planning & Capital
Works, Bylaw Enforcement, Ticket and Fine Collections and payment of a dividend;
City of Kitchener’s organizational structure concerning the parking portfolio.
Out of Scope
Detailed implementation plans to support the selected alternative.
Assumption
By-Law Enforcement remains in Community Services Department for the short term.
Further consideration may be that the Enforcement function related to affected parking lots is brought into
the Parking Enterprise.
9
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïê
Stakeholders
Stakeholders: Overview of Business Requirements
Primary – Internal
CouncilImplementation of 2003 Principles.
Efficient use of City staff and resources.
Economic Development Division Balance the parking needs of the Business Community while fostering
the re-use of underutilized City lands.
Infrastructure Services Department Department staff must buy into the accepted plan/end result for success.
Will require a reorganization within INS to establish an Enterprise unit
Fine Ticket Collection, Finance & No change in the foreseeable future.
Corporate Services Department
Bylaw Enforcement, Community Services No change in the foreseeable future
Department
Primary – External
Tax PayersEfficient use of tax dollars, City staff and resources.
User funded operations.
Parking Customers Sufficient and well-managed parking spaces.
KBIASupport the needs of the business community.
10
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïé
Section
4
Strategic Alignment
Purpose
The creation of a Parking Enterprise aligns with the Council direction that all Parking functions should operate as
an enterprise and provide a return on investment.
Goal from Business Plan Level of Impact Explanation
Council Resolution 2003 High The City should continue in the Parking business to ensure
FIN-03-021 control.
Parking should operate as an enterprise providing a
dividend to the City as a return on investment.
Parking subsidies should be considered economic
development tool and be accounted for accordingly.
The Corporate Plan High Service First – City wants people to come to the
downtown, parking spaces need to be available.
Community and Business Relations –City needs to
support business and provide adequate parking.
Change and Improvement – support infrastructure and
parking growth for customers and businesses.
Downtown Parking Study High Recommended two additional parking structures within the
completed in 2005 downtown core both in the immediate future.
On-going parking solutions that High The construction of parking structures eliminates surface
deal with parking demand and parking spaces until the structure has been completed. The
allocation of parking spaces to displacement of surface parking spaces for a 1 – 2 year time
deal with community needs frame needs to be addressed.
Economic Development Strategy Med4.0 Building a Dynamic Downtown: the City will
(2007-2010) …systematically attract investment to the City’s Downtown
properties and surface parking lots in order to advance
economic development and talent attraction.
Transportation Demand MedConstruction of structures for parking should take into
Management account the impact on the demand for parking as a result of
the implementation of a TDM program.
Compass Kitchener MedTo create and lead a public engagement process to validate
the community vision & directions and determine critical
community issues.
A Plan for a Healthy Kitchener MedDynamic Downtown: That the City continues with its
economic strategies as a solid approach to redeveloping its
economic health and well being.
Transportation Master Plan High The provision of parking is a key component of the TMP. It
will also be the funding source for the Cycling Master Plan
and the Transportation Demand Management initiatives
11
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïè
Section
5
Environment Analysis
Other Municipalities
The following is a brief review of how Parking Authorities are operating in other municipalities.
City of Toronto
Toronto Parking Authority absorbed parking operations from adjacent municipalities in 1998
(amalgamation)
Combined Parking Operations, Planning, Maintenance, Collections and Enforcement
City of Winnipeg
Winnipeg Parking Authority, Special Operating Agency re-created on January 1, 2004
(Public Agency operating on business principles)
Combined Planning, Property & Development, Public Works and Police Service (regarding parking
issues)
City of Thunder Bay
The Parking Authority of the City of Thunder Bay was formed in November 1979.
Canadian Parking Authorities
Criteria City of Toronto City of Winnipeg City of Thunder Bay
Approximate year of
Absorbed other Re-created January November 1979
transfer to Authority
municipalities in 1998 2004
Responsible for Land
Took ownership & Pursues private Conditional upon approval
Purchase
management of parking partnership for new of Council
facilities & related assets parkade facilities,
previously owned and Administers contracts,
operated by City leases and service
arrangements
Owner of new purchased Acquires and secures No ownership but No data available
land
land
manages all city-owned
parking facilities
Composition of Board 2 Members of Council, 5
Chaired by a City Rep 2 members of Council, 4
citizens (advertised appointed by CAO, voting members
recruitment), GM of other members may be
Authority a non-voting selected from
member Stakeholder groups
approved by Council
Corporate Structure
Planning; Maintenance; Planning, Property & GM of Corporate Services
Collections; Enforcement Development; Public reports to Authority
Works; Police Services GM does not vote and may
not be a member of the
Board
Annual Revenue
> $90 M $11.7 M by 2008 1.9M 2006
Operations/Maintenance
Provide guidance and Operates and Responsible for
policy, manage maintains all City construction, maintenance,
interaction with the public parking control, operation &
and the media management of municipal
parking facilities
12
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó ïç
Analysis of Alternatives
Section
6
Three possible alternatives are considered:
1. Distributed & tax supported parking model – do nothing alternative;
2. Consolidated & self-sustaining parking model – Parking Enterprise alternative;
3. Arms length & self –sustaining parking model – Parking Authority alternative.
Previously the option of selling the Parking Operations to a private company was considered, but ultimately
discounted
Part A: Responsibility for Parking Functions
This chart is a graphical representation of areas of Parking responsibilities and authority under existing and
proposed Alternatives.
Sections/Departments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Do Nothing Parking EnterpriseParking Authority
Capital Programs, Development &
City, Infrastructure City, Enterprise Parking Authority
Studies
Services, Transportation
Planning
Parking Operations City, Infrastructure City, Enterprise Parking Authority
Services, Transportation
Planning
Enforcement-Community
City, Community City, Community Services City, Community Services
Services
Services
Collections-Finance & Corporate
City, Finance City, Finance Possible transfer of
Services task/personnel to Authority
Finance a) Source for Capital
City, FinanceCity, EnterpriseParking Authority
expense
b)Payment of Dividend
N/A City, Enterprise Parking Authority
Future Land Purchase
City, Infrastructure City, Enterprise Parking Authority
Services
13
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îð
Part B: Discussion of Alternatives
Alternative 1: Distributed & Tax Supported Parking Model – Do Nothing Alternative
Discussion:
In May 2003, Council directed that Parking functions move toward an enterprise model. This “do nothing”
alternative would be inconsistent with the principles adopted by Council. The supply of parking spaces in the
downtown will continue to worsen with plans to increase the number of people living, working and pursuing
recreational activities downtown.
In the spring of 2008 Parking Operations were brought into the Development and Technical Services Department.
Previously, Transportation Planning was within the DTS Department and Parking Operations was located in the
Community Services Department, Enterprise Division. It was difficult for the two areas to coordinate work and
priorities due to this physical segregation and organizational communication channels. The consolidation
assisted in eliminating the fractured reporting relationships while allowing the Division to move closer to an
Enterprise model.
The pros of this alternative include:
Limited additional financial consideration
Organizational structure currently in place, no additional restructuring required.
The drawbacks of this alternative include:
Inconsistent with the Council Resolution of 2003;
Parking projects compete with other departments’ projects for budget dollars: new parking projects may
not be started to meet critical demands and timelines.
Major capital programs can impact capital budget
Existing staff resources are not sufficient to effectively manage and grow the parking operation
Impact
No additional financial implications;
Will require staff resources just to maintain status quo;
Does not provide for the development of the Cycling Master Plan or Transportation Demand
Management initiatives.
Conclusion:
Alternative 1 is dismissed for the following reasons:
Inconsistent with the Council Resolution of 2003;
Parking projects may not be started since they compete financially with other projects or will have
impacts on other capital projects
Limited staff resources impact ability to effectively manage and develop new parking facilities and
initiatives
14
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îï
Alternative 2: Consolidated & Self-Sustaining Parking Model – Parking Enterprise
Alternative
Discussion:
In the current situation, when the need for new parking structures are identified, the projects are in direct
competition with other departments’ projects. As a result, parking projects may be deferred, not because they are
not important but because other projects are considered to be more urgent at that time. Transferring parking into
an Enterprise would allow projects to be financed through the Enterprise and therefore would not compete with
other City projects. Enterprise divisions are self funded because revenue generated returns to the Enterprise
department for future projects, developments and maintenance.
A dividend may be paid to the City on a yearly basis and parking projects would not have to compete with projects
from other departments.
The pros of this alternative include:
Compliance with the Council Resolution of 2003;
Parking Operations and Capital Programs, Development and Studies are consolidated within
Transportation Planning;
No competition of capital funding for major projects in the budgeting process;
City retains full ownership and control of the Parking assets and resources;
Able to meet changing needs of parking in the City;
May be able to pay a yearly dividend to the City;
Capable of funding the Cycling Master Plan and Transportation Demand Management initiatives;
Revenue generating;
Measured approach by remaining within City’s control;
Leaves substantial funds at Councils discretion
The drawbacks of this alternative include:
Will require staff resources to properly manage;
May require a new location to house the new division;
Impact:
Refer to Section 8 for financial details;
Refer to the organizational chart below for a sample Parking structure for an Enterprise division;
Parking projects would not compete with other departments’ projects in the budgeting process.
15
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îî
Conclusion:
Alternative 2 will be considered further for the following reasons:
In compliance with the Principles of the Council Resolution of 2003 in that:
Parking should operate as an enterprise providing return on investment,
The City should continue in the Parking business to ensure control,
Parking subsidies should be considered economic development tools and be accounted
for accordingly.
All parking functions report to the same department which will co-ordinate priorities;
Revenue and investment decisions are linked;
Parking projects will not compete with other departments’ projects in the budgeting process;
City retains full ownership and control of the Parking assets and resources;
Yearly dividend may be paid to the City;
Able to meet changing needs of parking in the City;
More effectively used as an economic development tool.
16
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îí
Sample Organizational Chart: Parking Enterprise within a City department
Deputy CAO
Infrastructure Services Deartment
p
Director
ortation Plannin
Trans
pg
Administrative Support
Parking Manager
(New Position)
Supervisor Parking
Parking Electronic Technician
Parking Maintenance Attendants
Centre in the Square
Event Attendants
17
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îì
Alternative 3: Arms Length & Self –Sustaining Parking Model – Parking Authority
Alternative
Discussion:
By converting parking related functions into a Parking Authority, parking would become an Arm’s Length
organization with a member of Council sitting on the Board of Directors. The Authority would have a singular
management focus and would be responsible for sustaining, improving and growing parking operations. The
Authority would also be responsible for agreements with private companies without the approval of Council. The
Authority would be free to act as a proactive business responsible to the Board. Managing the parking facilities
and related assets currently owned and operated by the City of Kitchener would be the main focus of the
Authority. It would also be able to look for opportunities for increased cost recoveries.
The Authority, as a revenue generating agency, would operate a revenue generating business. The intent of the
Authority would be to provide customer service, maximize the annual return on parking operations and ensure its
long-term sustainability. A dividend may be paid to the City on a yearly basis. Parking projects would not have to
compete with projects from other departments because the Authority, as an enterprise would retain revenue.
Creating a Parking Authority would harmonize the goals and priorities of Parking Operations and Capital
Programs, Development and Studies as they would report to the same management.
The Authority may contract services for enforcement and ticket and fine collection from the Community Services
and Finance and Corporate Services Departments. Future consideration may be given to bringing these
functions into the Authority’s mandate.
The pros of this alternative include:
Revenue generating;
Yearly dividend paid to City of Kitchener;
Parking projects financed through the Authority would not compete with other projects;
Parking Operations and Capital Planning & Implementation report into one area;
Able to meet changing needs of the City with less encumbrances;
Council retains ownership of parking assets.
The drawbacks of this alternative include:
Authority may implement policies that are not in keeping with Council’s strategies and designs;
May be adverse financial implications during start-up, for example workload inefficiencies until the
Authority is up and running;
Will require additional staff resources to implement;
Additional costs related to the Board, Chief Operating Officer and support services; and
Will require a new location to house the new authority.
Impact:
Refer to Section 8, Economic Impact Analysis for financial details;
City retains ownership of Parking assets and resources;
Revenue generating;
Council policies such as the Corporate Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Economic Development
Strategy and others may be negatively impacted by an arms length Parking Authority;
Corporate organizational structure and staffing will be affected;
Council would not have total control over the Authority;
Parking projects would not compete with other departments’ projects in the budgeting process.
Conclusion:
Alternative 3, Parking Authority will be considered further for the following reasons:
In compliance with the Principles of the Council Resolution of 2003 in that:
Parking should operate as an enterprise providing return on investment,
The City should continue in the Parking business to ensure control,
18
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îë
Parking subsidies should be considered economic development tools and be accounted
for accordingly.
The city will loose direct control of the parking functions in that it will be a step away and operate
as an Arm’s Length organization;
Operations and parking functions from Transportation Planning report to same Authority;
Investment decisions linked to revenue through creating a business based model;
Parking projects will not compete with projects from other departments in the budgeting process;
Ability to meet changing needs of parking in the City with fewer encumbrances.
19
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îê
Sample Organizational Chart: Parking Authority
Parking Authority
Board of Directors
Chief Operating
Officer (COO),
Parking Authority
Planning and FinancialOperations Administration Enforcement
Land Acquisition under contract
Finance Technologists
Collections Maintenance
20
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îé
Part C: Further Consideration of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
An evaluation was undertaken to determine the relative comparison between the status quo, the Parking
Enterprise model and a Parking Authority. This evaluation was based on a possible 20 points per criterion and no
weighting was applied. The criterion for the evaluation is printed on the following page.
Results show that the best fit for Parking Operations is Alternative 2, a Parking Enterprise. The Parking Authority
model scored second but an important drawback to a Parking Authority is that the Authority may go in a direction
that is not consistent with Council direction. An example of this may be the Environmental Plan or as an
economic development tool to support intensification within the core.
Parking Organizational Alternatives
Do Nothing Parking Enterprise Parking Authority
Business Development capacity 61216
Technical capacity 121515
Full cost recovery framework 51515
Operating expertise 161915
Industry knowledge 121515
Linkages - with role/functions of unit 12188
Capacity Management time & resources 61416
Department/Division fit 121810
Transition complexity 15146
Decision making/flexible & timing (Asset
Management capacity) 101416
Negotiation - culture 101215
Administration and cash handling 101314
Operating budget impact 10108
TOTAL
136189169
Part D: Conclusion of Analysis of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
Alternative 2, the Parking Enterprise model, scored the most points on the evaluation. It achieves Councils goals
while still allowing Council control over all of the parking issues. This is critical from a transportation network
perspective since the provision and control of parking is directly linked to TDM, cycling, Downtown development,
environment and many other Council policies and initiatives.
21
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îè
Parking Organizational Alternatives, Definitions
The following criteria were used to compare the do nothing alternative and a Parking Enterprise or Authority.
Business development capacity
Does the alternative have business capacity and does it utilize business principles to aid in decision making?
Technical capacity
Does the alternative utilize technical skill sets to manage the design, layout, research, studies etc. relating to the
parking business?
Full cost recovery
Does the alternative operate in an environment where full cost recovery is an important element in project or
program development?
Operating expertise
Does the alternative have an operational orientation as opposed to a planning or legislative focus?
Industry knowledge
Is the alternative well connected in the industry? Does it know the suppliers, private operators, municipal peers,
etc.?
Linkages
How well would the alternative fit with other units in the Division, Department of the City?
Capacity – time and resources
Does the current Division/Department staff have time and resources to effectively oversee the alternative?
Department/Division fit
How well would the alternative fit with the overall philosophy and general operations of the Division/Department
Transition complexity
How difficult would it be to transition to the alternative (easy score high, difficult score low)?
Asset management capacity
Does the Department/Division manage assets and how would that responsibility fit with the general orientation?
Negotiation culture
Would the alternative have experience and culture to find negotiated solutions?
Administration and cash handling
The degree to which business style administration and cash handling is currently part of the alternative
responsibility.
Operating budget impact
Which alternative would have the least impact with regard to operating budget to oversee the function?
22
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó îç
Section
7
Project Risk Assessment
Risk of Project and each Viable Alternative (Not including Status Quo)
Risk Factor Impact Rating Likelihood Rating TotalAction
Rating
Parking Authority may Major3Somewhat 39 Ensure the Authority is made
go a different direction Likelyup of members who
than Council wants understand City objectives
and direction; ensure Council
member on board.
Parking Enterprise or
Major 3 Unlikely 2 6 Make sure the Enterprise or
Authority may not Authority has good business
generate a profit strategy.
Staff may not buy into Moderate2Unlikely 2 4 Have periodic meetings
the changes throughout the process to
keep all affected staff
informed, ask staff for input
with the changes.
Risk of Not Proceeding with Project (Status Quo)
Risk Factor Impact Rating Likelihood Rating Total Action
Rating
Conflicting prioritiesMajor3 Somewhat 39 Work with staff to reduce
Likelystress, continue to conduct
crossover meetings and
strategic meetings with
Operations and Planning so
that they can better work
together.
Parking projects Major 3 Likely 4 12 Persuade Finance & INS
compete with other Committee that Parking
departments’ projects projects must have a high
priority in relation to other
projects.
23
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó íð
Status Quo does not Major 3 Likely 4 12 Council Resolution must be
support the Council modified or revised
Resolution of 2003
Funding for Cycling Major 3 Likely 4 12 These long term initiatives
Master Plan and TDM will not have a secure
initiatives through funding source and will have
parking rate increases to compete with other
at risk projects
24
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó íï
Section
8
Economic Impact Analysis
Quantitative Analysis – Financial Cost & Benefit:
In order to assess the financial implications of moving to a true Enterprise structure for the Parking operations,
staff has prepared a long-term financial projection.
A true enterprise is characterized by a full user pay system (e.g., no ongoing support from the tax base) and,
where permitted by law, a return on investment paid back to the City. The City of Kitchener has the following true
enterprises currently:
Water, Sewer and Gas Utilities
Golf Courses
Building Division
The other “Enterprise” sections such as The Aud, Cemeteries, Special Events, etc. are not included because they
receive support from the tax base for their operating and capital programs.
In determining the feasibility of the Parking Operations as a self-sufficient enterprise, staff considered the following
principles;
A. Enterprise dividends to the City will result in a minimal or no levy impact to the tax based operations.
B. Enterprise dividends to the City will be consistent and will be adjusted for inflation annually.
C. All future parking related capital expenditures will be the responsibility of the enterprise.
budget for a deficit in any year of operations as this is inconsistent with the
D. The enterprise will not
Municipal Act.
Staff considered various options to mitigate the levy impact of converting parking to an enterprise. These options
included a combination of the following:
Monthly parking fee increases ranging from 3% to 10%
Dividends to the City ranging from $1,400,000 to $2,000,000
Different levels of parking related development charge revenue being allocated. These levels ranged from
partial to full allocation of Development Charges to the Parking Enterprise.
Based on the four principles outline above and the evaluation of various alternatives, the conversion of the
parking operations into a self sufficient parking enterprise is feasible.
25
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó íî
Capital Cost Assumptions
New Garages - Capital Costs and Funding
Centre
Courthouse Civic DistrictBlock
Queen, Ellen,
Charles & Fredrick & Young & Water &
BentonWeberDukeCharles
2011201220132015
Capital Cost of Garage
Total Capital Cost 16,000,00024,052,782 10,612,080 35,000,000
Covered By Partnerships (29,750,000)
Covered By City of Kitchener for KPL Central Library (5,285,000)
Covered By Region of Waterloo (5,964,500)
Covered By Province (6,475,000) (7,000,000) -
Covered By EDIF (5,500,000)
Covered By Development Charges (5,989,500) -
Covered By Land Sales (3,100,000)
Debt requirement 3,535,500 5,803,282 2,012,080 5,250,000
Amortize Period (Years) 20202020
Interest Rate 4.50%5.00%5.50%5.50%
Annual Payment $271,796 $465,670 $168,370 $439,316
The enterprise model assumes that parking operations will fund the City of Kitchener’s portion of the
debenture costs related to the Charles and Benton Garage, Civic District Garage, Centre Block Garage
and Charles and Water Garage.
City’s portion of the capital costs for each garage funded from the enterprise will be fully debentured over
20 years at a rate between 4.5% to 5.5%.
It is estimated that the total development charge funding available to be allocated to parking projects is
$11,535,883 based on the most recent DC amendment background study increased by inflation.
Consistent with report FIN-10-126, approximately $6Million has been allocated to the Charles and
Benton garage project above. It is also assumed but not reflected in the enterprise model that any
excess capacity arising out of the Charles and Benton Garage, Civic District Garage, Centre Block
Garage and Charles/Water Garage will be recovered and available to service growth, through future
development charges.
Operating Costs Assumptions
Fee increases for monthly customers will increase by 10% per year from 2011 to 2014. Starting from
2015, the fee increases for monthly customers will be at 3% annually.
Fee increases for hourly/meter customers is projected to be at 3% annually.
Expenses are projected to increase at a rate of 3% annually.
A dividend to the City of $1,750,000 starting in 2011 is included in the enterprise model. The dividend
combined with funding of all future capital costs by the parking enterprise is expected to result in a net tax
levy increase of 0.51%.
An assumption has been made that $1,070,000 in capital funding for membrane replacement at the
Duke and Ontario garage currently included in City’s 10 year Capital Forecast will be transferred to the
Parking Enterprise as seed funding in 2011.
Attached is the cash flow projection for the Parking Enterprise over the next 10 years.
26
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó íí
ì ó íì
ì ó íë
ì ó íê
ì ó íé
Section
Conclusions & Recommendations
9
Business & Operational Impact
Alternatives
Alternative 1:
Organizational structure currently in place, no
Do Nothing additional restructuring required.
Alternative 2:
Financial benefits, better able to manage
Parking Enterprise
department/projects, Council maintains control
Alternative 3:
Financial benefits, better able to manage
Parking Authority
department/projects
Focused on unencumbered decision making
Conclusions
Alternative 1
The Distributed & Tax Supported Parking Model – Do Nothing Alternative, was not considered to be a
viable option because it does not solve any of the problems or issues.
Alternative 3
The Arms Length & Self-Sustaining Parking Model – Parking Authority Alternative, will not be
recommended due to the number and seriousness of the drawbacks. A Parking Authority has its own management
structure which would be removed from the City, and Council would lose control over parking direction, issues and
fees.
Alternative 2
The Consolidated & Self-Sustaining Parking Model – Parking Enterprise Alternative, is the most viable
alternative. Forming a Parking Enterprise will address all of the objectives set by Council as well as fit best within the
City’s organizational structure in a fiscally sustainable manner.
BUSINESS CASE- PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó íè
Section
10
Next Steps
Council Direction:
Based on Council direction to adopt the principle that parking should operate as an enterprise providing a
return on investment, it is recommended:
1. That a Parking Enterprise be approved in principle as outlined in the attached business case, subject to final
2011 budget approval;
2. That monthly parking rate increases of 10% annually between 2011 and 2014 inclusive be incorporated into
the annual budget;
3. That a net tax levy increase of 0.51% in 2011 be referred to the 2011 budget review;
4. That the following key principles of a Parking Enterprise be adopted;
a) That all assets and liabilities associated with the expansion, maintenance, operation, ownership and
potential sale of the City’s parking facilities become those of the Parking Enterprise;
b) That an opening surplus of $1,070,000 in 2011 be funded from the City’s Capital Budget in order to
complete scheduled structural repairs in the Duke & Ontario Garage;
c) That an annual dividend in the amount of $1,750,000, plus annual inflationary increases, be paid to
the City from the Parking Enterprise;
d) That the Parking Enterprise annually retain all surplus funds in the appropriate reserve accounts in
order to fund all future operating, capital improvement and expansion costs related to the municipal
parking operation;
e) That one (1) Parking Manager position (full-time), one (1) Transportation Demand Management
Coordinator position (full-time) and one (1) Transportation Planning Project Manager Position (full-
time) be approved; and further,
f) That annual funding for the implementation of the Cycling Master Plan in the amount of $200,000 and
Transportation Demand Management initiatives in the amount of $200,000, as may be approved by
Council, be funded from the Parking Enterprise.
32
BUSINESS CASE – PARKING ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PAGE
ì ó íç