Attendees:   Marie Donovan, John Fields, Joe Collonge, Joe Graf, (chair) Dave Young, John Williams, Lisa Beam, Lynn Thompson, Michael Dawkins, Rich Rosenthal, Pam Marsh, Sandra Slattery, and Cynthia Rider.
Consultant: Rick Williams
Absent: Mike Gardiner, Katherine Flanagan, Emile Amarotico, and Pam Hammond
Staff present: Mike Faught, PW Director, Rich Rosenthal, City Councilman and Mary McClary, Admin Assistant
 
Dave Young called the meeting to order at 3:31PM.
 
 
Public Comment (Public)—written comments may be submitted
Chairman Young asked if anyone wanted to speak to items not on the agenda.
No one stepped forward.
 
 
Minute Approval
Chairman Young asked if there were any additions or correction to the minutes.
The minutes approved by unanimous consent.
 
 
Review 18 month parking management plan
Rick Williams wanted to review the 18 month work plan, and hopefully talk about the next 18-36 months.  He also had data collection from 51 off street parking facilities on 08/21/2015 (10AM to 10PM) and 08/22 2015 (10AM to 1PM).
 
He proposed a comprehensive set of strategies, programs, management, and day to day activities that were not in place in Ashland.  The concept may have been new to Ashland, but was successful in other cities.  It would require new resources, time, and active engagement. He reviewed the need for a manager/committee or consolidated contact as this would become a key part of this plan’s success. He highlighted:
 

1. Centralized Parking Management
2. Establish a division called Parking with a .50 FTE to manage the plan implementation
3. Initiate an internal city discussion regarding feasibility and options
4. Complete formation by July 2016

 
Discussion:
Mike F wondered if there was a way to hire a consultant in the interim because the city’s two year budget just started and the 18 month plan does not begin until this Committee finishes their work.  Rick discussed hiring a part-time person for one year to do the implementation. 
 
The members discussed staff, intern, consultant, part-time manager, job description, city resources and verification for additional staff.  Pam M believed that was a good way to approach the implementation, as it would give the city/committee more time to develop the job description, and to examine the revenue sources.
 
Rich R talked about the different options and available funding, especially concerning a two-year budget.  In 2016-2017 the departments would have a better idea of what funding would be available.  John F does not have the information on expected costs to get through the process of an evaluation for staffing, but wondered if those funds could be utilized directly.
 
Rick summed up the ideas that consolidation of multiple responsibilities for this position was favorable.  He introduced the next key item: Stakeholders in and adoptive work plan.
This group would continue or conclude with a final plan in December to be presented to Council and then turn the recommended plan over to a stakeholder group.  The new group would move forward with the implementation of details and a parking manager, advising with the implementation of the plan and become a liaison for the community. 
 
Step 3
Additional Data Collection
Rick was able to complete a data collection for 51 off street parking facilities.  In 2016 a scheduled data collection would be developed and be conducted on a routine basis.
 
Step 4
Establish near-term outcomes

• Set specific targets: set goals between January and June of 2016, ex: number employees to park out of downtown system.
• More discussion would be needed to allow the plan to be implementable, and have a parking manager to report back to the committee was a critical path to get to the “branding”.
• Maximize the parking that we have.

 
Step 5
Shared Use Outreach

• Need to put together a shared use plan
• local volunteers
• opportunity list
• 18 months may begin at any time

 
Step 6
Simplify On-street time stays (per UO Study)

• Get to 2 and 4 hours with free
• Unlimited time for paid parking, except retail
• manage the turnover
• employees less likely to use because they would have other options
• establish base standards, inside and outside the core
• exception process determined by the groups, set by criteria

 
When determining time stays in a residential areas, an agreement by the residents would need to be identified, and in addition, their ability to violate a 4-hour limitation.  Long term this would be a good option.
 
Residential and Commercial
Dave Y agreed this allowed for both 4 hour time stay in residential and agreements for residents, eliminating the unused capacity. 
 
Joe G asked for clarification if these were action items the committee would approve in support of simplifying the parking system and capturing more control of the capacity in residential areas.  The members discussed about implementing permit parking with a residential plan and the different examples already in existence.  Pam M explained there were many variables and concerns about residential planned parking and would like to be careful of the language used in this section, as the committee does not want to give the impression they had explored all options.
Cynthia R asked for clarification of where they would recommend employees would park.   Rick explained off street, but the committee would not outline it until the shared use plan was developed.  He also believed the existing commercial zone could be “cleaned up” now.  It was however important to agree there needed to be exploration in the residential parking plan and how employees would park off street.  Sandra S believed it was difficult to approve a concept when there were steps that needed to happen first, and it wasn’t definite if the steps were actually possible, for example the 51 off street facilities available for employees. Rick explained the committee would true the schedule to these systems. 
 
Rick believed the core area would not be a part of the first step of 4-hour parking. Sandra S asked for clarification of the core area. Rick went over the zoning map and the time parking.   Mike F offered to put together a map of the area in question and distribute it to the members.
 
Joe G still wondered if the committee was approving a concept or a time line of steps.
Rick clarified on the process and time line for this, the committee had a total of 5 meetings, needed to look at the big picture and not the details.  Rick was hoping to display a “logic and a reason” to generate questions that would initiate discussions and planning.  The timeline was useful to help drive the project and get it done.
 
Marie D asked about the threshold, a solid long term vision and plan, versus options that were tried without backup plans.
Rick spoke to the committee regarding making some visible changes within the 18 month plan and using that plan to determine where they go in the future.
 
Step 7
Deploy brand through off-street signage upgrade

• designer for branding
• deploy new off street signage by December 2016
• possibility of in right of way, wayfinding systems 

Step 8
Expand bike parking network
Increase bike parking opportunities throughout downtown

1. bike lanes
2. on sidewalk identify locations
3. bike corrals identify locations
4. on private property negotiate participation
5. inexpensive
6. marketing

Step 9
On-street Pricing

• Utilization of revenue invested back into project
• Premium rate parking, value rate parking

 
Example of revenue potential:
1,000 on street parking stalls, charging $1/$6 per day (2 hours maximum)
$6,000 dollars per day times 180 days =$1,080,000.00 per year.
Lynn T offered the idea of easy payment options for example pay by phone applications.
 
Step10
Wayfinding (in rights of way) by 06/2016

• Need Brand
• existing lots
• electronic options
• all lots have address not a name

 
Long term solutions 18 – 36 months
Firm up the 18 month plan, then based on good data, proceed to discussions on street pricing, employee permits, branding the system, permit options, marketing roll out, accelerate finding information on a garage or shuttle system and get pricing/costs.
 
 
QUESTIONS
Joe G wanted to make sure he understood the plan correctly, to make sure it was clearly defined because some aspects were study and in other places there seemed to be action items.  Rick would go back and re-define the plan language.
The committee wanted to understand exactly what changes they were approving. Identify decisions to be made.
 
Initial Data Findings
51 surface lots---1,998 stalls—minimum 12 hour survey---physically counted (city and private)
August
Friday, 08/21—12 hours

• Peak hour 1pm to 2pm
• off street parking 54.7% occupancy in peak hour
• 906 empty stalls, may or may not all be a feasible option, create opportunity list
• 4 city lots, 343 stalls
• parking garage mostly full during prime times
• prime stalls in the core

 
Saturday, 08/22—13 hours

•  empty stalls 44% occupied
• city lot 100% all day (one lot)

 
Estimated cost to build a parking garage: $8 million dollars
Rick remarked it would be reasonable to put a program in place that would open up 200 stalls. He would get the maps and data information to the committee for the next meeting. Mike F explained once the lots were determined then he would work to make them safe. First he would ask Kim our traffic engineer, to evaluate and work on the details. Pam remarked the sites on the other side of the RR were really shuttle dependent. Rick also mentioned they had not considered other sources of parking like hotel or commercial parking.
 
It was determined the next meeting would be in October the week of the 12-16^th, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:23PM.
 
 
Respectfully submitted by:
Mary McClary
Administrative Assistant
City of Ashland