Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1999 - Parking Planning StudyCity of Jefferson City Jefferson City, Missouri PARKING PLANNING STUDY Final Report August, 1999 Rich and Associates, Inc. Parking Consultants parking@Ric_hAs soc. corn August 5, 1999 Mr. Duane Schreimann, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Jefferson 320 East McCarty Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Dear Mayor and Council members: MCH AND,ASSOCIATES Our reference 99?0 Your reference PO: 0040101 The consulting firm of Rich and Associates would like to present this Parking Feasibility Study to the City of Jefferson. The study summarizes the findings of research conducted by the firm and includes a set of recommendations that have been devised as a result of that research. The report begins by summarizing Jefferson's current situation, the opinions of downtown patrons, employees and managers. The fieldwork conducted by the firm was extensive, leading to a numerical analysis and modeling of parking demand patterns within the downtown. The model and subsequent factored adjustments made to that model, which reflect consumer preference and habits, are contained in the report. From our analysis and through consultation with municipal officials and stakeholder groups, we have prepared a comprehensive set of recommendations. The final report includes all of the tabulated field research data, the Jefferson City model, a plan for providing more downtown parking, conceptual design schemes and recommendations for Jefferson City's existing parking system. We hope that this report meets with your approval and that we can form a long-term relationship. Rich and Associates would also like to extend sincere gratitude to those individuals that have participated and assisted in the preparation of this report. Their insight and patience have contributed significantly to the final product. Sincerely, Rich and Associates, Inc. Richard A. Rich, Executive Director cc: Marty Brose, Director of Public Works file E JEFFERSON/REPORT,` doc John C. Revell Project Manager Rich and Associates, Inc. email: 25240 Lahser Road, Suite 2 Orlando, Florida Parking Consultants parking@RichAssoc.com Southfield, Michigan 48034 (407) 667-8990 Architects web site: (248) 353-5080 Fax (407) 667-8988 Engineers httpJ/www.ParkingDesign.com Fax (248) 353-3830 Planners Tampa, Florida (813) 879-0987 Fax (313) 875-5724 R C RICH. P E R A.RICH D VV BUP.R R W KINNELL, AIA D P BUCH,P E M J JOBINAIA City of Jefferson Introduction Table of Contents Table of Contents a) List of Maps c) List of Figures c) List of Schemes c) List of Exhibits c) Pro Forma Analysis Charts d) List of Tables d) Executive Summary Acknowledgments iv Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Parking Study Introduction 1.1 Background page 1-1 1.2 Purpose page 1-1 1.3 Study Area page 1-2 1.4 Scope of Services page 1-5 1.5 Methodologies page 1-6 Section 2 - Data Gathering Techniques and Survey Results 2.1 Methodology and Survey Results page 2-1 2.1.1 Definitions page 2-1 2.2 Parking Inventory page 2-1 2.3 Turnover and Occupancy Study for On -street Parking page 2-8 2.3.1 Turnover and Occupancy Study Summary page 2-8 2.4 Turnover and Occupancy Study for On -Street Parking page 2-9 2.5 Manager Surveys page 2-21 2.6 Employee Surveys page 2-22 2.6.1 Summary of Full-time Employee Surveys page 2-22 2.7 Pedestrian Surveys page 2-24 2.8 Parking Survey Comments page 2-25 Rich and Associates, Inc. —Parking Consultants a Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Introduction Section 3 — Parking Demand and Zone Analysis 3.1 Parking Demand and Zone Analysis page 3-1 3.2 Methodology page 3-1 3.2.1 Parking Demand Parameters page 3-2 3.3 Parking Demand Analysis Assumptions page 3-3 3.4 Comparison of Current and Future Parking Supplies and Demands page 3-5 3.5 Importance of the Zone Analysis Technique page 3-9 3.5.1 Example of Why the Zone Analysis Technique is Applied page 3-10 Section 4 — Recommendations A Meters and Fines page 4-3 B Marketing page 4-5 C Enforcement page 4-9 D Signage page 4-11 E Shuttle System for Downtown Employees page 4-15 Section 5 — Changes to Parking Structure 5.1 Changes to Parking Structure at Exit page 5-1 5.2 Modifications for State Parking page 5-4 Section 6 — Site and Design Analysis 6.1. Options For Additional Parking page 6-1 6.2. Site and Design Analysis page 6-4 6.3. Recommendations for Structured Parking page 6-5 6.4. Manager Survey page 6-9 Rich and Associates, Inc.—Parkina Consultants b Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Introduction List of Maps 1. West Study Area 2. East Study Area 3. West Study Area - Parking Supply Map (on -street) 4. East Study Area - Parking Supply Map (on -street) 5. West Study Area — Parking Supply Map (off-street) 6. East Study Area — Parking Supply Map (off-street) 7. West Study Area - Peak Occupancy Achieved (on -street) 8. East Study Area — Peak Occupancy Achieved (on -street) 9. West Study Area - Peak Occupancy Achieved (off-street) 10. East Study Area — Peak Occupancy Achieved (off-street) 11. West Study Area — Parking Deficit 12. East Study Area — Parking Deficit page 1-3 page 1-4 page 2-2 page 2-3 page 2-4 page 2-5 page 2-17 page 2-18 page 2-19 page 2-20 page 3-7 page 3-8 List of Figures 1. Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies page 1-8 List of Schemes Scheme 1 — Changes to Parking Structure page 5-5 Scheme 2 — Changes to Parking Structure page 5-6 Scheme 3 — Modifications for State Parking page 5-7 Scheme 4 — Modifications for State Parking page 5-8 Scheme A — Block 27 page 6-18 Scheme B — Block 27 page 6-20 Scheme C — Block 14 page 6-22 List of Exhibits 4-A Parking Voucher Example page 4-8 4-B Examples of Recommended Signage page 4-13 Rich and Associates, Inc. —Parking Consultants c Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Introduction Pro Forma Analysis Charts Project and Finance Cost Work Sheets page 6-9 through 6-16 Pro Forma Analysis Chart (Table 5) page 6-17 List of Tables 2A Off Street Lot Inventory page 2-6 2B Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 1 (on -street) page 2-10 2C Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 1 (off-street) page 2-11 2D Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 2 (on -street) page 2-13 2E Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 2 (off-street) page 2-15 3A Parking Demand Generation Rates Comparison page 3-2 313 Parking Demand and Block Surplus/Deficit page 3-4 3C Parking Spaces Demand per Time Period page 3-5 3D Factored Demand Vs Supply page 3-9 Rich and Associates, Inc. —Parking Consultants d Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Executive Summary Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of an extensive analysis of the parking conditions present in downtown Jefferson City, Missouri. Based upon the findings of the analysis, a set of recommendations for improving Jefferson City's parking is included with this study. Jefferson City's downtown was sub -divided into two zones or areas for analysis. Each area was felt to have unique characteristics, which would influence the parking demand either seasonally or daily in a different manner. The first zone (blocks 1 through 14) Rich and Associates classified as a government zone due to the dominant presence of State buildings and surface parking lots. The second zone (blocks 15 through 39) consisted of a mixture of business, retail and State and local government uses that have a continuously high demand throughout the day. Section 4 of this report is a recommendation summary, which contains the associated costs and suggested implementation succession for each recommendation. The next step, after review of this report by city council, is the assignment of various tasks to individuals within the city and to groups and individuals that are willing to partner with the city in developing Jefferson City's parking. What are the numbers ofparkin.._spaces required in downtown Jefferson City? In determining the number of spaces required for the level of activity present in downtown Jefferson City, Rich and Associates employed two primary methods of analysis. The first method utilized, required a complete inventory of the buildings in the downtown and the uses present in those buildings. This information was then used to calculate a parking space demand for each individual use within each building. The demands were then summed to reveal a block by block demand, which was then further expanded to reveal a zone by zone demand. The second method used in determining demand, is the result of the turnover and occupancy studies that were undertaken. Essentially, we calculated a raw demand based on parking use and occupancy in the downtown. This demand was then factored to take into consideration occupancy of both on -street and off-street parking, as well as the turnover that was observed in key areas of the downtown. The demand was then further refined by including the economic effects of the cost of supply and the consumer's propensity to park further from their destination due to cost and length of stay. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Executive Summary Our conclusion from this modeling was that there currently is an absolute deficit of 1,672 parking spaces in zone one and a surplus of 656 parking spaces in zone two. The future parking demand scenario revealed that the deficit in zone one would grow to 1,730 and that zone two would develop a deficit of 474 spaces. The future scenario is a parking demand model developed by Rich and Associates to take into account increased parking demand from economic development and future development projects. The deficit figures for the current situation were further refined to account for economic conditions of supply, demand and price unique to Jefferson City. Overall, there is a factored current demand for 237 more parking spaces in the downtown area. The future scenario demonstrates that parking demand grows to a demand for 1,475 additional parking spaces. Where should new parking be provided in downtown Jefferson? After examining the demand aspects of each zone and taking into consideration the effects of seasonality, Rich and Associates identified three potential sites in zone two that would be good locations for additional supply. The criteria used to analyze the potential sites were the site size, land cost, proximity to key demand generators and availability. Following discussions with city officials the site located at the corner of High and Adams Street was determined to be the best site for the development of additional parking. This site provides an opportunity to address local parking demand and presented an opportunity for a potential partnership with the county in developing the site. What are the costs of implementing the recommendations? Some of the recommendations made by Rich and Associates are administrative changes that have no financial impact on revenues or expenses. Other recommendations involve setting into place systems that will have an initial capital cost, but in time will realize a revenue gain. Remaining recommendations that have a one time cost of purchase are intended to aid in the efficiency of Jefferson City's parking system. As outlined above, Rich and Associates is recommending that additional parking be developed at the corner of High and Adams Street. This structure will contain 133 spaces. It will cover the existing city lot and be one level above grade off the alley. For the long teim, Rich and Associates identified a site on Block 17 that is currently used as bank parking. This site should seriously be considered for the mid to long term. A detailed revenue stream, which includes a revenue and expense breakdown, can be found in Section 6 of this report. The pro forma shows that the current parking system requires rate increases in 2003, 2006 and 2009 to meet the 1.15 debt service coverage. The new parking structure would require subsidy from the existing system and would still not achieve a 1.15 debt service coverage for the combined operations (current system and new structure). In order to meet this requirement the city could use current Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Executive Summary parking reserves or equity from the county (if they are a partner) to reduce the borrowing, or increase parking rates system -wide greater than the 10% shown to generate more income. How should additioncdparking be paid for? As a part of our recommendation strategy, we have included a general time frame approach. Some of the recommendations are revenue generators and are intended to help pay for other recommendations that have associated costs. The included pro forma financial analysis of the recommendations demonstrates that the new parking system is not only self-sustaining, but will begin to generate a net surplus soon after implementation. Other sources of revenue that will need to be explored in order to build the new parking structure will be a partnership with the county. What about reconzrnendcition for the existing parkin_a arage? Rich and Associates developed alternative conceptual designs for improving the entry/exit lanes in the Jefferson Street parking structure. After examining these schemes and discussing alternatives with Rich's staff, city officials selected the best alternative for controlling access Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Executive Summary Acknowledgment Those mentioned below were directly involved in the Parking Plan, by way of meetings and "brainstorming" sessions. Many others participated indirectly through informal interviews and by filling out questionnaires. Rich and Associates, Inc. would like to recognize and thank the elected representatives and officials of the City of Jefferson, the business managers of the downtown banks, retail and service establishments, and non-profit organizations, as well as the Chamber of Commerce. Their invaluable assistance and cooperation have been instrumental in the development of this parking study. Key Participants: Marty Brose, Director of Public Works, City of Jefferson Rich Mays, City Administrator, City of Jefferson Tony Johnston, Parking Division Director, City of Jefferson Janice McMillan, Senior Planner, City of Jefferson Greg Dorge, GIS Coordinator, City of Jefferson Don Shinkle, Director, Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce Garry Taylor, Project Director, Main Street Action Committee Mark Allen, Assistant Division Director, State of Missouri Chris Yarnell, Director of Public Works, Cole County Mike Forck, Cole County Commissioner, Cole County Tom Rackers, Public Affairs Manager, Sprint/United Telephone of Missouri On behalf of the Rich and Associates Team, We hope that this plan and the process that has led up to its compilation will guide the City of Jefferson in developing a new and improved parking system. As we remain committed, not only to our work, but to a long- term relationship with the City of Jefferson and the other partners in this project, we will endeavor to assist with issues, which may arise from this report or with its implementation, wherever and whenever we can. Rich and Associates, Inc. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants iv Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study Section 1 1.1 - Background This study, prepared by Rich and Associates for Jefferson City, serves to examine the existing parking system, both from a qualitative and quantitative standpoint. City officials contracted Rich and Associates to prepare a study that encompassed the entire downtown area stretching from Jackson Street on the east to Bolivar Street on the west, the Missouri river on the north and U.S. 50 on the south. In addition to a parking planning study, city officials requested that Rich and Associates staff examine the city owned and operated parking structure for potential improvements and determine the feasibility of constructing a parking structure on east High Street. As with all of our studies, we initiate the process of this study with a series of meetings, public surveys and field studies. Data collected as background material, for the parking report, was analyzed using proven methods established by Rich and Associates. Our study drew on standards developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute, which were modified in accordance with the recommendations of our senior partners to suit the unique circumstances present in the State Capital. Some considerations prevalent to this study included the presence of the State Capital Building, Legislature, ancillary administrative offices, Supreme Court and related public facilities within the downtown area. 1.2 - Purpose The Jefferson City downtown parking study was undertaken to analyze the parking needs unique to the city and the forces that have created those needs. By examining existing city policies, current situations and quantifying future development, we have prepared a set of recommendations that will translate into a successful parking management plan. City staff, advisors and parking committee members, at a kick off meeting held on December 14, 1998, reviewed the goals and objectives of the study. Overall, this parking master planning study answers many vital parking questions about the condition and adequacy of downtown parking in Jefferson City, such as: • What is the nature and magnitude of the present parking situation in both of the major demand areas of the downtown core area? Can these areas be defined as the Government Area and the Commercial Area? • Are there parking areas with sufficient capacities to satisfy peak and seasonal parking needs? • Is it possible to manage the existing parking supply in downtown Jefferson City more effectively? • What affects, if any, would additional privately or publicly developed parking have on the economics of the parking system and the viability of the downtown area? Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 1-1 Jefferson City Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study • How can any parking improvements be financed and when should such improvements be implemented? 1.3 - Study Area The study area, as outlined in section 1.1, is bounded by Jackson Street on the east, Bolivar Street on the west, the Missouri River on the north and U.S. 50 on the south. Maps 1&2, "City of Jefferson - Study Area Maps" located on page 1-3&4 illustrate the total study area with the above defined zones illustrated. The purple dashed line represents the study areas' boundary. Rich and Associates evaluated the parking conditions of the 34 -block "Primary" study area, demarcated by the line. Areas east and west of the purple line were included for supply analysis only. The study area was subdivided into two key zones or areas. The western half (west of Jefferson) is referred to as the Government area due to the strong presence of State owned facilities. The eastern half is known as the commercial area. The eastern half contains a mixture of uses, which includes city, county and state buildings, as well as commercial and residential structures. Maps 3 and 4 indicate the block's number and on -street supply values for each zone. Maps 6 and 7 illustrate the off-street parking areas and the reference number assigned to each lot. The reference number corresponds with a descriptive inventory table found on pages 2-6 & 2-7. The types of land uses contained in the study area included retail, industrial, service, restaurant, office, educational, special use, residential, mixed use, governmental, and hotel (hospitality). These categories, while appearing relatively general in scope, encompass the key downtown uses when considering parking demand generators. By subdividing the downtown uses into these categories, we are able to develop a computer generated, spatial parking demand model. Another consideration incorporated into the study is the topography of the downtown area. The relatively steep grade significantly impacts parking demand patterns, as well as any parking structure schemes devised for downtown Jefferson City. Additional considerations include the desired development sought by the Municipality and its stakeholders, urban character and the presence of historical buildings. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug.. 1999 1-2 L ! 5 1. Imou J u rr www. _ l'fl""e" -k"5 . raw+ arms woman F-1 .,iTY F JEFFERSON MISSOURI RICH1 AND ACSOCIAITS Arditecture PsrkYq CcsulLrdi erviitertg 252250 [aF.c^r Heed, Sw:e 2 Southfield. }dioNGen x-054 (2413) 3c3-SC84 -ox {24?) 353-38:3 i.i? 878-0957 U "tceu. Foridc C45.) 667-3PB: we:r ;4e42ti;tdds:e.com WEST STUDY AREA ZONE 1: GOVERNMENT AREA LEGEND 11 BLOCK NUMBER BLOCK FACE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATIONS EXISTING BUILDING OFF—STREET PARKING 1-3 COMMERCIAL AREA CITY OF JEFFERSON MISSOURI Ard tacdre Parlr]'±p Caa nis Ervismaerig 25240 Loi!ser P.;7, Sva: 2 SOLMfel7, !.ic,i :n 42^wi (245) 353_5050 -m (2M3) 353-3920 icrnj/� n7a Rim 'r (BIT) 879-0387 1A\.ti ('I427) c't?-9999 AND ASSGCIATl i E -W§: Fc;k'ty0rr5nrece.eem EAST STUDY AREA ZONE 2: COMMERCIAL AREA LEGEND BLOCK NUMBER BLOCK FACE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATI OE;13 EXISTING BUILDING OFF—STREET PARKING E-4 G Jefferson City Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study 1.4 - Scope of Services The scope of services performed by Rich and Associates for the City of Jefferson is listed below. Services included studies, analyses and surveys that were conducted in order to develop answers and solutions to the parking questions and issues listed previously in the purpose section. The firm conducted an employee survey to determine the parking habits of individuals who work in the downtown core area. The parking habits or characteristics sought included: =:> Parking locations utilized by employees of the downtown core area. => Perception regarding current conditions of downtown parking. => Opinions on possible solutions, which can be used to improve the downtown parking situation. => Modal split by classification (i.e., drive and park or carpool). • Business owners and managers were surveyed to provide parking characteristic data and to discover their perceptions and opinions of the city's existing parking system. • Turnover and occupancy studies were performed to evaluate the utilization of the downtown core area's on -street and off-street parking areas. • A pedestrian survey was conducted. This survey was used to determine the pedestrian's destination, mode of arrival, location used for parking, duration of stay and their opinion regarding Jefferson City's parking. • A block by block evaluation of the parking characteristics, by land use type, for the downtown core area was completed. Much of the information, in terms of square footage of existing downtown structures, was based on maps and data provided by the city. This information was used to calculate building square footage, related to land use types as categorized by Rich and Associates. • Existing enforcement policies and procedures were reviewed, along with the staffing and routing of enforcement personnel. • A comparison of the parking systems of cities similar in size to Jefferson City was completed. This comparison is intended to provide an example of other cities' parking systems, in terms of rate structures, managerial operations and supply. • A feasibility study for the construction of a parking structure on east High Street was conducted. • The existing main city garage was evaluated and a series of recommendations for improvements to this structure have been offered. Rich and Associates; Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 1-5 Jefferson City Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study 1.5 - Methodologies The parking study methodologies developed by Rich and Associates are effective and accurate tools for quantifying current and future parking characteristics exclusive to Jefferson City. Our methodology involves computer modeling of parking demand based on land -use. Specifically, an inventory of buildings and their uses is compiled and a demand factor is assigned to each use category. The demand factors are based on research by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute. Modifications to the demand factors are based on experience with past projects of similar scope and scale to that of Jefferson City. Additional modifications are made in accordance with the recommendations of Rich and Associates' senior partners, who take into consideration the unique characteristics and situations specific to downtown Jefferson City. It has been the firms' experience that parking characteristics unique to a city can be determined by collecting and analyzing data specific to the study area. Once the block by block demand has been calculated, for both current and future circumstances, a comparison with the existing supply of parking is made. The resultant figures are parking surplus and demand estimates for each block. The methodologies applied by the firm include an analysis and examination of the previously mentioned parking space and land use inventories, a parking utilization analyses and employee and business manager surveys. The parking utilization analysis and the results from the surveys are explained in Section 2. The data for these Sections of the analysis were collected during the month of December 1998. Field observations and comparative counts were also undertaken during a return visit to Jefferson City. A point of consideration concerning the Jefferson City parking study was the increased parking demand that would be caused by Legislature sessions. When the field work phase was initially undertaken in mid -December, the Missouri State Legislature was out of session for Christmas. Initially, Rich and Associates had recommended that the turnover and occupancy studies be undertaken with the legislature in session. However, due to time constraints, city officials decided that the fieldwork should be undertaken as soon as possible. The fact that the legislature was out of session does influence the parking study, however the end result is that we were able to look at parking demand from a base or minimum standpoint. Additionally, city officials indicated that remaining legislature personal and increased downtown traffic kept parking demand high during the month of December. Unlike designing parking for a shopping mall, municipal parking planning must have a higher degree of economic feasibility, such that the parking supply is oriented towards creating a balanced situation. Shopping mall parking is designed to satisfy a peak season demand that occurs during the month of December. The remainder of the year the parking supply is generally not fully occupied. While this is desirable from a retail perspective a municipal parking supply needs to be well utilized throughout the year in order to be economically self-sufficient. In the case of Jefferson City's parking study, the parking demand is based on need presented without the full -added demand of transient parking created by the legislature. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 1-6 Jefferson City Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study To confirm that the December turnover and occupancy figures would reasonably reflect the peak demand that downtown Jefferson City would experience, Rich and Associates staff undertook informal comparison counts of select areas while the legislature was in session. The results were that while the Legislature was in session, parking demand was only marginally higher. Parking demand for the legislature varies depending on the nature of assembly discussions and the level of public interest. Providing a publicly funded parking supply adequate to meet peak parking needs developed by the legislature would not be efficient, as the parking supply would only be fully occupied several times throughout the year. Rich and Associates' approach to developing a demand model was to account for Legislature demand, but primarily to design for basic year round demand. The result is that the additional parking supply recommended should be well utilized throughout the year and added demand from the legislature will only serve to increase the revenue stream by causing the supply to be fully occupied during sessions. On page 1-8, the figures entitled "Figure 1: Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies" graphically shows the interrelationships among the various parking methodologies employed to evaluate Jefferson City's parking system. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 1-7 Jefferson City Section 1 - Purpose and Scope of Study Figure 1: Interrelationship of Parking Study Methodologies Determined by PARKING SUPPLY conducting on - street and off-street inventories CO,*VIPAIIISON OF BLOCK Determined by Multiplied by LAND USE conducting a building inventory parking generation for each block demand rates. Geographic distriFA - TURNOVER & bution of parking G OCCUPANCY STUDY utilization levels DEMAND was determined. (Current & Future) EMPLOYEE & Conducted to obtain MANAGER SURVEYS k parking characteristics unique to the City Data Gathering Techniques & Survey Results - - - • - - - - - - - Parking Demand. nalysis - - - - Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 1-8 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results Section 2 2.1 - Methodology and Survey Results The Methodology and Survey results section of this report offers an assessment of the results of the on -street and off-street parking space inventories, on -street and off-street turnover and occupancy studies and the employee and manager surveys. The results of the studies, surveys and inventories are important to the determination of the city's current and future parking needs. 2.1.1 - Definitions Turnover - Turnover is the number of cars that occupied a parking space in a particular period. For example, if a parking lot has 100 spaces and during the course of the day 250 different vehicles occupied the lot, then the turnover is two and a half times (2.5). Occupancy - the length of time a parking space is occupied by a vehicle. Circuit - A circuit refers to the two-hour time period between observances of any one particular parking space. For the turnover and occupancy study, a defined route was developed for each survey vehicle. One circuit of the route took approximately two hours to complete and each space was observed once during that circuit. (Note: one -hour parking stalls are netted out in order to calculate an accurate turnover figure based on a two-hour circuit time.) Block Face - A number was assigned to each block within the study area. Each block is then referenced by its block number and by a letter (A, B, C or D). The letter refers to the cardinal face of the block; with A being the north face, B the east face, C the south face and D the west face. Therefore, a block designated as lA would refer to the north face of block 1. 2.2 - Parking Inventory The study area contained 1,436 regular and 60 handicap on -street parking spaces, 8,509 regular and 143 handicap off-street spaces, for a total of 10,148 spaces. The on -street spaces consisted of six types, which included free parking - no limit, 10 min. free, 2 hour free, 4 hour free, metered, and permit only. Other spaces, generally barrier free, handicap, loading zone spaces and restricted, were also scattered throughout the study area in relatively limited numbers. In most cases, the parking spaces were marked with stall lines. In cases where the parking stalls were not marked, the numbers of spaces were estimated. The State of Missouri, Division of Facilities Management, provided data regarding State owned parking lot inventories. The off-street lots are identified by a letter designation on the area maps. The letter corresponds to the turnover and occupancy tables found on pages 2-10 through 2-16. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parkin Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-1 C L I F ST NO PARKING 10 SPACES -PERMIT 10 SPACES -FREE 11 SPACES -2 HOUR 9 SPACES -FREE 13 SPACES -FREE 9 SPACES -FREE 8 SPACES -FR 1I SPA w a. S SPACES -FREE U) NO PARKING S SPACES-FREL— . 17 SPACES -FR NO PARKING 5i 8 SPACES ' �I W. MA)N S T. NO PARKING s N Q N N W 0 N N 0 a I L R O l D 19 SPACES -FREE 8 SPACES -FREE N a N NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKIN HIGH S SPACES -FREE 0 4 Q z NO PARKING NO PARKING Mc CARTY S T. _ NO PARKING NO PARKING C U) 6 SPACES -FREE 10 SPACES -HOUR 6 SPACES-,-.__ z cc z s FREE NO PARKING 21 SPACES - ID HOUR 0 cDr -cD I z Y O 0 z rL z NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING - LOADING 6 0 0 N I0 9 SPA:EE- I -DU,< BUS STOP Li 0 1 V C- N 9 - 1 HOUR (8AN-5PM) (1 BARRIER -FREE) NO PARKING NO PARKI G EYRRESSW NO PARKING BROADWAY ST. pSPACES-FF` AHCP P h C 6 -10 MIN. 6 -2 HOUR 6 SPACES C I - 2 HOUR 0 x 0 a 11 SPACES - 10 HOUR“' (1 BARRIER -FREE) '5 SPACES U• Z Y / 0 z - :0 HOUR 1 b NO PARKING N\ fJ 0 4 V5 116 -10 MIN.5 -2 t h <6• 1 2 p4 1 12 SPACES -10 HO 10 SPACES - 10 (1 BARRIER -FR F. G9 4.a r { ilv (V B SPACES -10 NO PARKING NA CITY OF JEFFERSON MISSOURI RICH AHD ASSOCIM6 Arailockra CAAC Parkki Cua67brb 5 -sheering 252:'1 Lauer Ro-;C, . 2 fl la. 5222 ii 40034 (238) 15) 02- (243) .5. 3610 Twnpo, 444:3 (870) (79-0937 1041710, Flodaa (407) 567-5491 4*11 pONinc9RicR404144cm WEST ON -STREET TASKING PARKING SUPPLY ZONE 1: GOVERNMENT AREA LEGEND PERMIT ONLY FREE PARKING NO PARKING HOUR FREE HOUR FREE METERED RESERVED 10 MINUTE FREE TIME RESTRICTED BLOCK NUMBER \d BLOCK FACE v 2.2 Cl 1A p I-1CP tf 4-2 HR N NO PARKING 0 N 'I N 13 SPACES -1 HOUR I 7.c..A rrf (7L-77= -2 HR. 2 H.0 7-2 HR. 2-10 HR. S -FREE I HOUR 10 SPACES -R HOUR x a s N = I C.11 J O y = _ U 1, xI 23 26 •,:.' �—• N 1 z a 0 vt rU a o HOUR 6 -10 MIN. 6 -2 HOUR 5- -1 HR. I 2 HR. S-1 • 12 SPACES -1 HOUR I I _ 11 e Al C H S T. S Y' NO PARKING I = a O GY 0 = J ▪ HR. cc 0 OADINC .1 1 IMO 2-10HR. 1-IOHR. 4-10H- LOADING __c 'EE Q 8 -FREE SPACES-1 HOUR 11 SPACES -2 HOUR (1 BARRIER -FREE) 14 SPACES - FREE _t,ca N 1,11N.88 -2 HOUR . �' 9 SPACES -1 ICl1R 2 HOUR ✓r6 -10 .�- 13 SPACES HOUR CV 1UUK 0 N O Z O �N Vyt7 0 S 7 = m U N N z a 17 w 22 W M 7 Z M v 4 = a W - C v C•4 ia. nI N CES - 10 HOURND < r. I - m JARRIER-FREE) 3 12 SPACES -10 HOUR _ can^cc_+^ HOUR c ^ VAC,S 2 10 SPACES -2 HOUR Mc CAR T Y ST. CES - 10 HOUR IC SPACES - 10 HOUR SPACES vl-H,C.7-2 HOUR 2-H.0 c s (1 BARRIER -FREE) o o a. L cc s o z �, o v i v tl + CV 18 ILI !'4f N L A KING yr 6 3'ACES-10 HOUR NO PARKING a. 14 SPACES -2 HJUR - i NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING 9 SPACES - FREE 1 fi SPACES -RESTRICTED 13 SPACES -FREE i' (1)-2 HOUR o <1.11' 45AM-5PM ' 1)-2 HOU„ 9 -2 HOUR (7AM-7PM) 20 SPACES -FREE —_J 12 SPACES - 2 HOUR 12 SPACES -2 HOUR 8 SPACES - FREE r x v; CITY OF JEFFERSON MISSOURI AND A950Cid46R ArchtoOrm Par13y CcrslarAa 52 0 L^11ELI Ac , Sutc 2 f tnfielE, AlA0gcn 20,24 2:2) 255 Fa, 048) 55_-iO3-2822 (8:2 Florida ) 979-0997 Mcitlap4, Florida (122) 527-8991 E -41/L patnin90Yc)ccccam EAST ON -STREET PARKING PARK:NG SUPPLY ZONE 2: COMMERCIAL. AREA LEGEND PERMIT ONLY "REE PARKING NO PARKING 2 HOUR. FREE 1 'r RTEP,E_ RE SENVEC 10 MINUTE FREE TIME RESTRICTED BLOCK NUMBER BLOCK FACE 2-3 A I 13 S i. -�i .n s 'N. M A N S T. S ; ? R S S S IAl A N S U U R 1 F .A C 1 C R. A t ,_ R 0 / 0 NJ / CITY OF JEFFE SON MISSOURI Arclitears PertNQ CcxtfaDe I 252+0 LaheerRa2, 7 ) ::field. 42014,7 +?:.,;5 _ 244 352-5202 Tam-, Pardo •Aait:cnd, lan':a AND ASSOCIATES .`.icha;sacmm WAS OFFSTREFT FARKI N EL, PARKING SUPPLY ZONE 1: GOVERNMENT AREA Z C cc C Z C C R S TAT E S T. 41411 dI ! G H ST Mc CARTS S T. NI LLER S 0 z 0 N 0 a d 0 DL I — CITY OF JEFFERSON MISSOURI ArchlwIlre Parktiv ComalbrAs Lrtp*,. Sy 25219 Lancer 3412, a:ite 2 Southfield, 44334n 48034 (248) 353-5020 Fa (219) 355-03.32 34Rpa, Florian (813) 812-0(30 ,140344 , Florian (.15) 883-8831 (-M: oc 2ry8)48404: -am I EAST OFF-STREET PA .KNG PARKING SUPPLY ZONE 2: COMMERCIAL AREA LEGEND PARKING LOT A BLOCK NUMBER BLOCK FACE 2-5 Table 2A: Off -Street Lot Inventory LOT RESERVED REGULAR VISITOR HANDICAP METERED CAR POOL TOTAL A 12 12 B 31 10 41 C 7 7 14 D 140 140 E 198 198 F 361 21 382 G 5 1 6 H 159 _ 159 I 180 5 185 J 230 230 K 114 82 54 18 268 L 65 65 M 243 243 N 167 167 0 74 74 P 45 45 Q 14 14 R 136 3 6 145 S 178 178 T 144 144 U 16 16 V 14 3 2 19 W 56 2 58 X 45 45 Y 83 83 Z 25 25 AA 21 21 AB 32 ,. 32 AC 95 95 AD 53 53 AE&AF 39 1 40 AG 65 2 67 AH 23 23 Al 20 20 AJ 101 101 AK 86 86 AL 25 2 27 AM 31 31 AN 5 1 6 AO 119 3 40 162 AP 12 12 AQ 679 679 AR 33 33 AS 58 58 AT 32 32 AU 57 57 AV 14 14 AW 550 550 AX 2 42 44 AY 1 23 24 AZ 17 17 BA 9 1 10 BB 11 3 14 BC 17 17 2.6 Table 2A: Off -Street Lot Inventory LOT RESERVED REGULAR VISITOR HANDICAP METERED CAR POOL TOTAL BD 13 1 14 BE 51 51 BF 50 4 54 BG 45 45 BH 47 47 BI 8 1 9 BJ 11 1 12 BK 101 101 BL 13 13 BM 19 19 BN 28 28 BO 10 10 BP 108 108 BQ 23 23 BR 40 2 18 60 BS 33 5 38 BT 21 21 BU 15 15 BV 26 26 BW 18 18 BX 25 25 BY 20 20 BZ 20 20 CA 9 3 12 CB 10 10 CC 11 11 CD 40 40 CE 39 1 • 40 CF 32 32 CG 59 59 CH 72 72 CI 58 58 CJ 59 59 CK 19 19 CL 138 2 140 CM 73 73 CN 29 29 CO 6 6 CP 36 36 CQ 17 17 CR 11 1 12 CS 10 10 CT 35 1 36 CU 52 52 CV 50 50 MISC. 1,721 SUM 5,204 1,228 109 143 208 39 8,652 Note: The miscellaneous category represents smaller lots and individual parking areas that have not been indicated on the supply map. A number of lots were not striped, in these cases the number of parking stalls were estimated. 2-7 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results 2.3 - Turnover and Occupancy Study for On -street Parking A turnover and occupancy study was undertaken for the entire "primary" study area during the December fieldwork. The intent of this analysis was to determine the number of times on -street spaces were "turning over", or being used by different vehicles, and the occupancy of on and off- street spaces by time of day. The study area was divided into two routes. The first route covered the "Commercial Area" from 9:00am to 5:00pm and was both a turnover and occupancy study. Route 2 encompassed the "Government Area", east of Jefferson, and was an occupancy count that was undertaken from 9:00am to 7:00pm. Informal comparative counts were taken in select lots and the city parking structure during a return visit in January 1999. Manager and employee survey forms were randomly distributed. Employee and manager surveys measured the level of interest in employee parking and transportation options and ascertained the perceptions of the downtown's parking condition. In addition, the surveys were used to calculate current demand and project future demand by land use. Pedestrian surveys were also conducted to determine a customer's method of arrival, locations parked, length of downtown stays and the number of stops made during downtown visits. The manager, employee and pedestrian surveys were also used to evaluate parking accessibility, convenience, maintenance and security issues. 2.3.1 — Turnover and Occupancy Study Summary • The daytime activity in the study area is relatively constant between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The level of activity along some of the block faces greatly differs. This can be attributed to the topography of Jefferson City and the proximity of the parking area to key demand generators `generally located along High Street. • A number of vehicles were parked illegally throughout the study area. Rich and Associates' surveyors observed violations each time they visited the downtown. The majority of the violations were expired meters. • The turnover study of on -street parking indicated that there is a problem with parkers remaining beyond the allotted time limits. Our analysis revealed that a number of parkers were practicing the "two hour shuffle", where they will move their vehicle every two hours in order to avoid a fine for overtime parking. Other parkers were simply parking in a spot for the entire day without feeding the meter. Generally, we have found that in areas where there is a parking shortage, business owners and their employees will utilize on -street parking and periodically move their automobile if there is a time limit on the space that they are occupying. This practice is common for two reasons, the first being the convenience of close by, on - street parking and the second is that often these spaces are free or cheaper than a permit lot. Typically, throughout the study area we found a turnover factor of 2.28, while an ideal factor would be closer to 4. Rich and Associates. Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-8 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results Our research has revealed that approximately 1 out of 5 vehicles parked in the downtown during the day is in violation of the posted time limit for on -street parking. Along some block faces, our turnover analysis revealed that as many as 55% of the vehicles had parked longer than two hours (worst observed cases). On these same block faces, 5% of the vehicles were remaining all day in the two-hour spaces (worst observed cases). This problem is compounded by the problem that is created by Jefferson's low overtime parking fine. Many people indicated that it was cheaper and more convenient for them to park on street and pay the overtime fine, as opposed to paying for monthly parking at an off-street lot that would be further from where they work. Violation Summary: (summarizes how long a random sample of vehicles stayed beyond the posted time limit at on -street meters) Maximum Posted Duration (1 hour) Maximum Posted Duration (2 hours) Number of parking spaces in sample 132 meters 204 meters Vehicles that remained more than 2 hours 9% (24) 8% (35) Vehicles that remained more than 4 hours 7% (19) 3% (12) Vehicles that remained more than 6 hours 3% (7) 1% (4) Total number of vehicles analyzed 277 435 2.4 - Turnover and Occupancy Study for Off -Street Parking The following tables contain the turnover and occupancy data (refer to pages 2-10 through 2-16). The results are listed by block reference with a letter identification scheme that corresponds to the Parking Supply Map found on pages 2-4 & 5 and select on -street areas around the Capital complex and in the commercial area. The tables include estimated capacities (number of parking spaces) per lot and the number of spaces occupied for the circuits completed on December 16, 1998. The average and peak occupancies are listed on the bottom of the table. The city and State parking structures were included in the turnover and occupancy study, as well as all of the private lots within the study area. The "peak occupancy achieved" maps on pages 2-14 & 15 illustrate the results of the turnover and occupancy study for both the on -street and off-street counts. In general the turnover and occupancy study has revealed where the highest parking usage rates can be found. The highest occupancies can be found in the State parking areas and in on -street locations mainly along High Street and Capital Avenue between Jefferson and Jackson. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 2-9 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Table 2B: Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 1 (On -Street) Circuit 1 9:00 - 11:00 Circuit 2 11:00 - 1:00 Circuit 3 1:00 - 3:00 Circuit 4 3:00 - 5:00 Circuit 5 5:00 - 7:00 Est. Cap. Average Occ. % Peak Occ. % Block Face Description _ Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Zone 1 (Government Area) 7 B ON -STREET 45 42 93%, 37 82% 41 91% 41 91% 18 40% 36 80% 42 93% 7 B ON -STREET (HCP) 7 2 29% 2 29% 2 -29% 0 0% 0 0% 1 17% 2 .29% 9 A ON -STREET 38 26 68% 28 74% 30 79% 22 58% 22 58% 26 67% 30 79% Zone 1 Summary 90 70 78% 67 74% 73 81% 63 70% 40 44% 63 70% 74 82% Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2.10 Table 2C: Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 1 (Off -Street) Circuit 1 9:00 - 11:00 Circuit 2 11:00 - 1:00 Circuit 3 1:00 - 3:00 Circuit 4 3:00 - 5:00 Circuit 5 5:00 - 7:00 Est. Cap. Average Occ. % Peak Occ. % Block Face Description _ Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % _ Zone 1 (Government Area) 1 B LOT - B,C 48 31 65% 31 65% 24 50% 37 77% 33 69% 31 65% 37 77% 1 B LOT - B (HCP) 7 2 29% 3 43%.: 2 29% 2 29% 1 14% 2 29% 3 43% 2 A LOT - D 140 131 94% i 134 96% 137 98% 138 99% 63 45% 121 86% 138 99% 2 A LOT - E 198 198 100% 198 100%W 187 94% 192 97% 82 41% 171 87% 198 100% 3 B LOT - F 376 375 100% 375 100% . 373 99% 359 95% 53 14% 307 82% 375 100% 4 A LOT - H 159 136 86% 141 89% 130 82% 122 77% 46 29% 115 72% 141 89% 5 D LOT - I 180 138 77% 143 79%. 141 78% 102 57% 50 28% 115 64% 143 79% 5 D LOT - 1 (HCP) 10 8 80% 10 100% 8 80% 8 80% 0 0% 7 68% 10 100% 5 D HOTEL DECK 180 51 28% 54 30% 41 23% 51 28% 44 24% 48 27% 54 30% 5 D LOT - R 154 146 95% 144 94% 145 94% 138 90% 31 20% 121 78% 146 95% 5 D LOT - R (HCP) 10 7 70% 7 70% 5 50% 7 70% 0 0% 5 52% 7 70% 6 A LOT - K 276 276 100% 276 100% 275 100% 275 100% 24 9% 225 82% 276 100% 6 B LOT - K (HCP) 82 79 96% 78 95% 74 90% 74 90% 19 23% 65 79%. 79 96% 6 B LOT - L 129 126 98% 116 90% 105 81% 97 75% 65 50% 102 79% 126 98% 7 A LOT - M 245 244 100% 245 100% 245 100% 236 96% 55 22% 205 84% 245 100%. 7 B MISC. LOT 60 43 72% 47 78% 40 67% 39 65% 9 15% 36 59% 47 78% 7 D LOT - L 67 49 73% 53 79% 48 72% 48 72% 5 7% 41 61% 53 79% 8 D LOT - N 167 126 75% 130 78% 95 57% 118 71% 74 44% 109 65% 130 78% 8 D LOT - O 45 44 98% 45 100% 40 89% 34 76% 19 42% 36 81% 45 100% 8 D LOT - P 74 25 34% 27 36% 24 32% 25 34% 18 24% 24 32% 27 36% 9 B LOT - W 37 33 89% 29 78% 29 78% . 31 84% 15 41% 27 74% 33 89% 9 B LOT - W (HCP) 5 3 60% 2 40% 3 60% 4 80% 0 0% 2 48% 4 80% 9 D LOT - V (&LOOP) 45 15 33% 16 36% 29 64% 3 7% 17 38% 16 36% 29 64% 9 D LOT - V (HCP) 14 4 29% 7 50% 2 14% 2 14% 0 0% 3 21%. 7 50% 10 B LOT - U 19 17 89% 16 84% 16 84% 17 89% 5 26% 14 75% 17 89% 10 D LOT - T 127 90 71% 87 69% 82 65% 93 73% 45 35% 79 63% 93 73% 11 D LOT - S 178 142 80% 142 80% 127 71% 133 75% 17 10% 112 63% 142 80% 11 D MISC. LOTS 70 55 79% 55 79% 60 .86% 52 74% 10 14% 46 66%. 60 86% 12 B LOT - AD 53 24 45% 25 47% 23 43% 25 47% 3 6% 20 38% 25 47% 13 B LOT - AA 15 10 67% 10 67% 15 100% : 12 80% 13 87% 12 80% 15 100% 13 B LOT - AC 95 54 57% 55 58% 52 55% 52 55% 42 44% 51 54% 55 58% 13 C LOT - AB 32 16 50% 16 50% 16 50% 16 50% 1 3% 13 41% 16 50% 14 B LOT - X 25 8 32% 7 28% 2 8% 6 25% 15 60% 8 30% 15 60% 14 C LOT - Z 11 11 100% 7 64% 8 73% 6 55% 3 27% 7 64% 11 100% Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-11 Table 2C: Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 1 (Off -Street) Circuit 1 9:00 - 11:00 Circuit 2 11:00 - 1:00 Circuit 3 1:00 - 3:00 Circuit 4 3:00 - 5:00 Circuit 5 5:00 - 7:00 1 Est. Cap. Average Occ. % Peak Occ. Block Face Description Occ. % _ Occ. % Occ. % _ Occ. % Occ. % Zone 1 (Government Area) 14 C LOT - Y 45 42 93% 39 87% 29 64% 26 58% 25 56% 32 72% 42 93% Zone 1 Summary 3378 2759 82% 2770 82% ' 2632 78% 2580 76% 902 27% 2329 69% 2844 84% Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-12 Table 21): Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 2 (On -Street) Circuit 1 9:00 - 11:00 Circuit 2 11:00 - 1:00 Circuit 3 1:00 - 3:00 Circuit 4 3:00 - 5:00 Est. Cap. Average Turnover Average Occ. % Peak Occ. % Block Face Description Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Zone 2 (Commercial Area) 15 B ON -STREET 17 6 35% 13 76% 10 59% 7 41% 1.41 9 53% 13 76% 15 C ON -STREET 14 14 100% 9 64% 14 100%. 12 86%u 2.71 12 88% 14 100% 15 D ON -STREET 37 33 89% 30 81% 32 86% 19 51% 1.41 29 77% 33 89%. 16 A ON -STREET 8 8 100%. 6 75% 8 100% 5 63% 2.25 7 84% 8 100% 16 B ON -STREET 8 6 1 75% 7 88% 1 7 88% 1 8 100% 3.38 7 88% 1 8 100% 16 C ON -STREET 11 11 100% 11 160% 11 100%u 11 100% 4.00 11 100% 11 100% 16 D ON -STREET 11 11 100% 7 64% 9 82% 8 73% 2.55 9 80% 11 100% 17 A ON -STREET 9 8 89% 9 100% 8 89% 9 100%u 3.78 9 94%u 9 100% 17 B ON -STREET 8 5 63% 5 63% 5 63% 6 75% 2.38 5 66% 6 1 75% 17 C ON -STREET 10 1 7 70% 5 .50% 4 40% 1 4 40% 1 n/a 5 50% 7 70% 17 D ON -STREET 8 5 63% 2 .25% 7 88% 4 50% 2.25 5 56% 7 88% 18 A ON -STREET 11 6 55% 6 55% 6 55%u 2 18% n/a 5 45% 6 55% 18 B ON -STREET 13 2 15% 3 23% 3 23% 0 0% n/a 2 15% 3 23% 18 C ON -STREET 14 0 0°io 0 0% 1 0 0% 0 0% n/a 0 0% 1 0 0% 18 D ON -STREET 9 3 33% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0 0% n/a 1 8% 1 3 33% 21 A ON -STREET 8 5 63% 7 88% 8 100% 4 50% n/a 6 75% 8 100% 21 B ON -STREET 9 3 33% 0 0%u 0 00/0 0 0% n/a 1 8% 3 33% 21 C ON -STREET 10 7 70% 5 50% 4 40% 2 20% n/a 5 45% 7 7.0% 21 D ON -STREET 10 2 20% 4 40% 1 10% 0 0% n/a 2 18% 4 40% 22 A ON -STREET 13 12 92% 10 77% 11 85% 13 100% 3.46 12 88%u 13 100% 22 B ON -STREET 8 4 50% 5 63% 5 63% 7 88% 2.25 5 66% 7 88% 22 D ON -STREET 12 9 75% 11 92% 9 75% 10 83% 2.50 10 81% 1 11 92% 23 A ON -STREET 11 7 644% 7 64% 4 36% 7 64% 2.27 6 57% 7 64% 23 B ON -STREET 9 9 100% 7 78% 8 89% 6 67% 3.00 8 83% 9 100% 23 C ON -STREET 12 9 75% 10 8311/o 10 83% 11 92% 2.75 10 83% 11 92% 23 D ON -STREET 7 7 100% 6 86% 6 86% 6 86% 3.57 6 89% 7 100% 24 B ON -STREET 6 3 50% 3 50% 1 17% 2 33% 1.00 2 38% 3 50% 24 C ON -STREET 15 6 40% 9 60% 9 60% 12 80%u 2.00 9 60% 12 80% 24 D ON -STREET 14 1 4 29% 7 50% 6 43% 4 29% 1.29 5 38% 7 50% 25 A ON -STREET 9 1 7 78% 0 1 0%n 0 0% 0 0% n/a 2 19% 7 78% Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-13 Table 2D: Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 2 (On -Street) Circuit 1 9:00 - 11:00 Circuit 2 11:00 - 1:00 Circuit 3 1:00 - 3:00 Circuit 4 3:00 - 5:00 Est. Cap. Average Turnover Average Occ. % Peak Occ. % Block Face Description Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Zone 2 (Commercial Area) 25 B ON -STREET 14 6 43% 8 57% 0 1 0% 0 0% n/a 4 25% 8 57% ^ 25 C ON -STREET 14 13 93% 4 29% 1 7% 14 100% 2.29 8 57% 14 100% 25 D ON -STREET 31 11 35% 16 52% 9 29% 9 29% 1.13 11 36% 16 52% 26 A ON -STREET 10 9 90% 3 30% 5 50% 9 90% 2.20 7 65% 9 90% 26 B ON -STREET 10 4 40% 6 60% 1 10% 4 40% n/a 4 38% 6 60% 26 C ON -STREET 10 7 70% 6 60% 5 50% 5 50% 2.20 6 58% 7 70% 26 D ON -STREET 9 6 67% 8 89% 8 89% 5 56% 2.33 7 75% 8 89% 27 A ON -STREET 10 7 70% 8 80% 5 50% 9 90% 2.80 7 73% 9 90%. 27 B ON -STREET 10 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% n/a 0 0% 0 0% 27 D ON -STREET 8 5 63% 5 63% 5 63% 5 63% 2.25 5 63% 5 63% 28 A ON -STREET 10 4 40% 2 20% 3 30% 3 30% n/a 3 30% 4 40% 28 B ON -STREET 17 8 47% 10 59% 10 59% 9 53% n/a 9 54% 10 59% 28 C ON -STREET 13 7 54% 8 62% 7 54% 1 8% n/a 6 44% 8 62% 28 D ON -STREET 6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% n/a 0 0% 0 0% 30 B ON -STREET 12 0 0% 1 8% 1 8% 1 8% n/a 1 6% 1 8% 31 A ON -STREET 20 3 15% 2 10% 1 5% 3 15% n/a 2 11% 3 15% 31 B ON -STREET 16 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% n/a 0 0% 0 0% 31 C ON -STREET 17 8 47% 2 12% 0 0% 0 0% n/a 3 15% 8 47% 31 D ON -STREET 8 4 50% 2 25% 2 25% 3 38% n/a 3 34% 4 50% 32 A ON -STREET 13 6 46% 2 15% 8 62% 6 46% 1.69 6 42% 8 62% 32 B ON -STREET 11 5 45% 7 64% . 9 82% 4 36% n/a 6 57% 9 82% 32 D ON -STREET 11 1 9% 4 36% 2 18% 1 9% n/a 2 18% 4 36% 33 A ON -STREET 12 9 75% 4 33% 7 58%. 7 58% 1.58 7 56% 9 75%- 33 B ON -STREET 12 4 33% 4 33% 3 25% 3 25% n/a 4 29% 4 33% 33 C ON -STREET 15 4 27% 2 13% 6 40% 2 13% 0.87 4 23% 6 40% 33 D ON -STREET 14 8 57% 12 86% 8 57% 6 43% n/a 9 61% 12 86% 34 A ON -STREET 11 8 73% 5 45% 5 45% 3 27% n/a 5 48% 8 73% 34 B ON -STREET 13 6 46% 2 15% 2 15% 2 15% n/a 3 23% 6 46% 34 C ON -STREET 13 12 92% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 1.00 3 25% 12 92% 34 D ON -STREET 14 5 36% 7 50% 1 7% 1 7% n/a 4 25% 7 50% Zone 2 Summary 725 389 54% 345 48% 320 44% 294 41% 2.28 337 46% 460 63% Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-14 Table 2E: Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 2 (Off -Street) Circuit 1 9:00 - 11:00 Circuit 2 11:00 - 1:00 Circuit 3 1:00 - 3:00 Circuit 4 3:00 - 5:00 Est. Cap. Average Turnover Average Occ. % Peak Occ. % Block Face Description Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Zone 2 (Commercial Area) 16 D LOT - AO 43 38 88% 33 77% 38 88% 24 56% n/a 33 77% 38 88% 17 B LOT - AN,AK 92 67 73% 66 72% 61 66% 45 49% n/a 60 65% 67 73% 17 B LOT - AM 31 34 110% 31 100% 27 87% 34 110% n/a 32 102% 34 110%. 18 B LOT - AJ 101 66 65% 54 53% 59 58% 56 55% n/a 59 58% 66 65% 78% 18 D LOT - AI 101 78 77% 79 78% 59 58% 56 55% n/a 68 .67% 79 21 B LOT - BF 177 78 44% 79 45% 59 33% 56 32% n/a 68 38% 79 45% 21 B LOT - BC 29 38 131% 37 128% 36 124% 37 128% n/a 37 128%. 38 .1.31%. 21 D LOT - BE,BD 64 8 13% 13 20% 23 36%. 36 56% n/a 20 31.% 36 56% 21 D LOT - BB 9 6 67% 4 44% 5 .56% 5 56% n/a 5 56% 6 67% 22 B LOT - AZ 30 29 97% 20 67%. 21 70%. 21 70% n/a 23 76% 29 97% 22 D LOT - BA 47 46 98% 47 100%` 51 109% 41 87% n/a 46 98% 51 109%- 23 B LOT - AU 57 36 63% 25 44% 49 86% ? 35 61% n/a 36 64% 49 86% 23 B LOT - AX 44 35 80% 44 100% 42 95% :' 40 91% . n/a 40 91% 44 100% 23 D LOT - AW 550 247 45% 241 44% 244 44% 200 36% n/a 233 42% 247 45% 24 B LOT - AQ 679 490 72% 473 70% 550 81% • 433 64% n/a 487 72% 550 81% 24 B LOT - AR 33 18 55% 14 42% 15 45% : 18 55% n/a 16 49% 18 55% 134% 24 B LOT - AS 58 65 112% 78 134% 49 84% 47 81% n/a 60 103% 78 24 D LOT - AT 32 5 16.% 4 13% 9 28% 5 16% n/a 6 18% 9 28% 28% 25 A LOT - BZ 46 13 28% 7 15% 10 22% 10 22% n/a 10 22% 13 25 A LOT - BY 20 20 100% 12 60% 19 95% 16 80% n/a 17 84% 20 100% 25 B LOT - BX,BV,BW 69 39 57% 57 83% 27 39% 25 36% n/a 37 54% 57 83% 26 B LOT - BT,BS 86 53 62% 65 76% 66 77% 66 77% n/a 63 73% 66 77% 27 A LOT - BR 38 35 92% 22 58% 21 55% 16 42% n/a 24 62% 35 92% 27 B LOT - BQ 23 19 83%.: 22 96% 17 74% : 16 70% n/a 19 80% 22 96% 27 B LOT - BP 108 73 68% 71 66%. 71 66%' 78 72% n/a 73 68% 78 72% 27 B LOT - BN 28 23 82% 19 68% 28 100%. , 27 96% n/a 24 87% 28 100% 66% 28 B LOT - BK 94 61 65% 55 59% 53 56% 62 66% . n/a 58 61% 62 28 B LOT - BJ,BI 11 8 73% 10 91%..: 11 NON-, 12 109% n/a 10 93% 12 109% 1 28 B LOT - BM(Vis.) 4 2 50% 2 50% : 2 50% 2 50% n/a 2 50% 2 50% Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-15 Table 2E: Turnover and Occupancy, Zone 2 (Off -Street) Circuit 1 9:00 - 11:00 Circuit 2 11:00 - 1:00 Circuit 3 1:00 - 3:00 Circuit 4 3:00 - 5:00 Est. Cap. Average Turnover Average Occ. % Peak Occ. % Block Face Description Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Occ. % Zone 2 (Commercial Area) 31 D LOT - CL 140 55 39% 51 36% 53 38% 58 41% n/a 54 39% 58 41% 32 D LOT - CJ 189 108 .57% 107 57% 99 52% i 100 53% n/a 104 55% 108 57% 33 C LOT - CG 59 51 86% 44 75% 47 80% 33 56% n/a 44 74% 51 86% 33 D LOT - CE 40 26 65% 23 58% 26 65%. 25 63% n/a 25 63% 26 65% 34 A LOT - CA 20 18 90% 11 55%0 19 95% 18 90% n/a 17 83% 19 95% 34 D LOT - CB 10 8 80% 7 70% 8 80% 9 90% n/a 8 80% 9 90% 34 D LOT - CC 15 12 80% 11 73% 11 73% 14 93% n/a 12 80% 14 93%. Zone 2 Summary 3177 2008 . 63'%0 1938 61% 1985 62% 1776 56% n/a 1927 61% 2198 69% Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-16 MISSO U R I - CITY OP O L RF S T. H K J 0 4- \ W. MAIN S T. 0 H I G -0 S T. O Mc CARTY S T. CC L�? 04 HO M 01 / 9 64% E X P R E S S W .A Y `J 14 i3 JEFFERSON MISSOURI 1 ArWlecty+ ErstoorIng 25110 Lancer Rwn, SLr 502554IE. 4,4. 94234 (241) 353-5420 -2 (242) 323-3,033 ruc T 't" -3:.2's, _ :ose; i ucscne, Sano2 (407) 557-8991 AND A9SOCIA1L'4 NMLL Par4454044.A.cu, WEST ON -STREET PARK'NG PEAK OCCUPANCY ZONE 1: GOVERNMENT AREA LEGEND 90% + 75% — 90% 50% — 75% LESS THAN 50% BLOCK O NUMBER _ BLOCK FACE D _J 2-17 6 r� z n \ J C43 z O W 100% H I C H S T, 100% co d2 n 17 ND 70% n 55% M N 19 S T .A I S T. N 80% CAPITOL A V E. 64% O O 92% 100% w m to 22 0 � CC co M c CARTS ST, 100% Y M O M M 70% M L L R S T. J 2 78% 100% 70% 90% ae e of 0 27 e: 0 its 11 40% a, 62% 73% of V 92% CO W 75% 40% 62% x CO 00 M 32 M7 15% 47% 0 cn Z 0 a 37 (39 CITY OF JEFFERSON MISSOURI RICH AND A9.SOCIAIffi chlookrar Parkto Comdata —MINA S4; Scuth7eld, .Michigan +5P54 4245} 353-5000 Fox 2040) 353-I0-20 cle (913) - Z74-27Wt7 M44rn(, Florida (407) 457--744/ 2.4121, aof.Ag9F'""4/2:44.ccm EAST ON -STREET PARKING N PEAK OCCUPANCY ZONE 2: COMMERCIAL AREA S LEGEND 90% - 75% — 90% — 75% LESS THAN 50% BLOCK NUMBER A FLOCK b FACE ' _ J 2-18 c CITY OF JE =FERSON MISSOURI Ardteatve Partiv Ca»S 25240 tnh,v Soto Rocd, S 2 Southrield, Mehgon 4803' (248) 353-5080 Fax (248) 151-1010 IMAM;(B13} 819-C93; Maitland. Poem (407) 041-899! ASSOCIATES 8-WL 9arwn428204wc<mm WEST OFF-STREET PARKING PEAK OCCUPANCY ZONE 1: GOVERNMENT AREA LEGEND PARKING LOT A - A 75% — 90% BLOCK NUMBER BLOCK FACE 50% — 75% LESS THAN 50% A DI 5 2-19 CITY OF JEFF' R MISSOURI Ate. �1 Englneeiv 25225264 Lits rr 4049, iiAte 2 4ichigcn 484!4 I� \; Fu2 (248 353-3635 IZIlH\ icmppa. Flar.Ca t6F3J 679-2937 0464044, �,o0da (407) 647-599! AND ASSOCLAT S E-404 oo.rg9R¢Fissoc.“ EAST OFF-STREET PARKING PEAK OCCUPANCY ZONE 2• COMMERCIAL AREA LEGEND PARKING LOT A 75% — 90% 50% — 75% BLOCK: NUMBER FLOCK FACE LESS THAN 50% 2-20 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results 2.5 - Manager Surveys Rich and Associates distributed over 100 surveys to businesses randomly selected in the study area. Thirty-four businesses completed and returned the surveys. Data obtained from the manager surveys was used in determining short and long-term parking supply and demand. Managers were asked the number of full and part-time employees employed at their business, the average number of customers or visitors that shop at their business and the percentage of those customers or visitors who are downtown for other purposes (i.e., employed in the downtown). A copy of the survey form is included in the Appendix Section of the report. Below is a summary of the surveys, received by the firm. Table 2F: Manager Opinion Survey Results A) Only the city should pay for parking improvements. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree B) It should be left to the private sector to provide parking downtown. • 14 5 Strongly Agree 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 5 Strongly Agree C) The cost for providing new parking downtown should be shared by the city, private sector and users. 411 i a i 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree D) I would support a special assessment to improve parking downtown. 4 5 Strongly Agree 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree E) The current fine for overtime parking is $5.00 this is (too high/low)? 4 5 Strongly Agree 1 Too Low 2 3 About Right 4 5 Too High Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-21 Jefferson City Section . - Methodology and Survey Results F) I would encourage my employees to park outside the downtown core and use a shuttle bus to leave more parking for customers/visitors 1 2 3 4 Strongly Neither Agree Disagree nor Disagree AVERAGE COST A) Off-street parking of customer/visitor use should charge no more than $0.33 per hour, B) If meters were installed to generate revenue, the rates should be no more than $0.34 per hour. C) Monthly parking for employees should be no more than $27.41 per month. 2.6 - Employee Surveys 5 Strongly Agree A representative sample of all business types within the study area received employee survey forms to distribute to their employees. A total of over 500 forms were distributed, and 250 employees completed and returned the surveys to the firm. The response rate was 50 percent. The employees of Jefferson City Businesses were asked: a) Their employment status (full-time or part-time) b) Type of transportation used to commute to downtown c) Location of where they parked if they drive d) Number of blocks between their place of employment and location parked e) Daily or monthly parking fees f) Levels of satisfaction regarding their parking experiences in the downtown. The results are compiled for full-time employees and for part-time employees. In addition, the results are categorized by job classification, as defined by the employees. There was a total of 235 full-time employees and a total of 15 part-time employees that completed the survey. We have included the results of the full-time employee surveys. However, the part-time results have been disregarded, as the number of respondents was too low to be statistically significant. 2.6.1 - Summary of Full-time Employee Surveys • Approximately 98% of the total number of full-time employees travel to work by automobile. The technical employees rely on their automobiles the least. • The retail employees are the largest group that park at the private lots, and the technical employees are the largest group to park in on -street, public lot and city parkade spaces. In total, the private lots are used more than the public lots and city parkade. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-22 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results • There are a high percentage of total full-time employees that park at on -street metered spaces, which limits the availability of convenient on -street parking spaces for customers. • There was a total of 150 employees (or 63.8%) that receive a subsidy from their employers for parking. • Full-time employees tended to agree that the city should pay for more downtown parking • Overall, the downtown full-time employees were against the use of a free shuttle bus to park outside the downtown core. • The full-time Downtown employees felt that the hourly rate for parking should be approximately $1.20; the daily rate for parking should be approximately $2.70; and the monthly rate for parking should be approximately $25.65. Table 2G: Employee Opinion Survey Results (full-time) A) Only the city should pay for parking improvements. - I I • 1 2 3 Strongly Neither Agree Disagree nor Disagree B) The current fine for overtime parking is $5.00, this is to (high / low). I I 1 Too Low 2 3 About Right I 4 5 Strongly Agree 4 5 Too High G) If free parking outside the central business district was provided and serviced by a convenient shuttle system, I would use it. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 H) If I leave my parking space during the day for a short time, I can't find parking when I return. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 • 3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 Strongly Agree 4 5 Strongly Agree Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-23 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Result -- I) Downtown parking isn't safe. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree nor Disagree Agree J) I would pay more to park close to work versus less cost to park farther away. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Disagree nor Disagree Agree K) I would be willing to pay more for parking if the revenue were used to improve the parking. 1 2 3 4 Strongly Neither Agree Disagree nor Disagree AVERAGE COST C) If meters were installed to generate revenue, the rates should be no more than $1.19 per hour. D) Daily parking rates in off-street lots or parking decks should cost no more than J= per day. E) Monthly parking for employees working downtown should cost no more than $25.65 per month. 2.7 - Pedestrian Surveys 5 Strongly Agree Pedestrian surveys were conducted Wednesday, December 16, 1998 from 9:30 a.m, until 3:30 p.m. The surveyor interviewed pedestrians along High Street between Jefferson and Adams Street. The pedestrians were randomly stopped and asked to respond to seven questions, the results of which are summarized below. A total of 83 pedestrians participated in the survey. Thirty-one of the participants were downtown for work, twenty-eight were downtown to shop and twenty-two were downtown for personal business and other (i.e., dining) type of activities. In total, 52 of the 83 participants (62.7%) drove to downtown, while only one walked. Nineteen (22.9%) pedestrians carpooled and ten (12.0%) arrived by public transportation. (Note: The high public transit ridership observed in Jefferson City is likely due to the State Employee Shuttle System. Typically, public busing in a city the size of Jefferson only achieves 2.5 % ridership). Rich and Associates, Inc. -• Parking Consultants �4 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 3: Parking Demand & Zone Analyses Section 3 3.1 - Parking Demand and Zone Analyses Analyses were performed to determine the current and future parking demands and needs for the study area. The data collected and compiled by the firm to calculate the parking demand included: 1) an inventory of the study area's on- and off-street parking supplies; 2) turnover and occupancy studies for public and private on- and off-street parking areas; 3) a block -by -block analysis of the square footage and use of every building in the study area; and, 4) results from the downtown employee and manager surveys. The results of the fieldwork are discussed in Section 2 of the report. The "Parking Demand and Zone Analyses" section of the report contains two levels of parking analyses to determine the number of parking spaces demanded and needed in the study area. The number of parking spaces demanded for each block assumes that there are no parking limitations in the study area such as availability, use, location and price. Therefore, the number of parking spaces, demanded for each block, are unadjusted and derived by several unrealistic assumptions. For each block, the firm calculated parking demand to derive surplus or deficit parking space amounts. The parking demand calculations are not adjusted for realistic market conditions and locational parking preferences. To adjust for the effects of parking availability, use, location and price, a more detailed parking zone analysis was performed to determine the number of parking spaces needed. One zone, which is a contiguous geographic area, was formed to analyze all alternative -parking areas within a reasonable walking distance from several demand generators (i.e. group of buildings). The number of parking spaces needed for the zone is less than the number of parking spaces demanded since employees and customers of the study area are affected by realistic parking limitations and alternative parking supplies that are grouped and evaluated by a zone. 3.2 - Methodology Parking demand was calculated for the current and future time periods. The future time period is defined by the reoccupancy of vacant properties in one to three years. The current and future parking demands were calculated by applying a parking generation factor per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area as categorized by land use. The land use types in Jefferson include retail, industrial, service, restaurant, office, educational, special use, residential, mixed use, government, and hotel (hospitality). The firm carefully examined the daytime activity, parking characteristics and land use patterns to derive more accurate and realistic demand generation rates to apply to the calculation of the city's parking demand. Rich and Associates' parking demand estimation technique is time consuming and thorough. Rich and Associates has calculated the parking needs using both the characteristics as collected as a result of the downtown analysis in Jefferson and using the city's zoning code, which details the number of parking spaces required per 1,000 gsf. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 3-1 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 3: Parking Demand & Zone Analyses The parking demand parameters, which are listed below, were important to the development of the parking generation factors and to the zone analysis of the downtown, which is a more detailed analysis of computing the number of parking spaces needed. 3.2.1 - Parking Demand Parameters • Building size, purpose and special use conditions. • Socioeconomic characteristics of the downtown population and population expected to visit the downtown. • Alternative modes of transportation, which includes availability, use attractiveness and policy impacts. • Proportion of the downtown trips that are multiple use; • Traffic accessibility. • Cost of parking. • Parking enforcement policies. • Location, quality and congestion of parking areas. • Pedestrian traffic patterns and wayfmding. Table 3A: "Parking Demand Generation Rates Comparison", provides a listing of the parking generation rates (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) by land use type. The Rich and Associates' demand generation rates were derived based on the results of the studies, surveys and interviews conducted during the fieldwork phase of the study and from demand generation rates developed by Rich and Associates for cities of similar size to Jefferson. Demand generation rates, from the Jefferson Zoning Ordinance and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, are provided to allow the reader to compare the demand generation rates developed by Rich and Associates to the zoning ordinance rates. Table 3A: Parking Demand Generation Rates Comparison Land Use 1 Jefferson Zoning Code (1) ITE (2) R&A Model (3) Note: per 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area unless otherwise noted Office 1.00 2.79 2.64 Retail 1.67 3.97 2.61 Service (varies) 3.3-5,0 4.17 3.51 Restaurant 1 per 3 seats 12.49 7.72 Residential (per unit) (varies from 1 to 1 per bath) 1.21 per unit 1.28 per unit Mixed 1.00 3.25 2.77 Government 1.00 3.84 3.63 Hotel (Rooms) 5 + I per room 0.89 per room 0.85 per room Industrial 2 per emp. plus any equip. 1.59 0.63 Special (1) -Institutional (approx.) I 0.36 0.45 Vacant 0.00 0.00 0.00 sJa - single family detached emp. employee 1) Source: Jefferson Zoning, September 1997. (As applicable to the downtown area) Note: In some cases city parking requirements have been converted into gross floor area requirements for the purpose of this comparison chart. 2) Source: Parking Generation - An Interim Report, ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers), 1987. Note: Some of the parking requirement factors have been converted into gross floor area requirements for the purpose of this comparison chart. 3) Source: Rich and Associates. Note: Rich and Associates factors are developed to meet the needs and conditions present in Jefferson City. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 3-2 City of Jefferson Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses Parking demand was computed for each block within the study area. The Rich and Associates' parking generation rates were multiplied by the total amount of gross square footage for each land use category, to derive the number of parking spaces demanded for each block. Table 3B provides a listing of each block's gross square footage and the calculated parking demand for both current and future scenarios, using Rich and Associates calculated factors. Results for each block with its parking supply were individually calculated using parking demand factors developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The institute of Transportation Engineers has developed a set of parking demand factors based on research compiled since 1985. These factors are national averages and are generally used by planners and engineers as a basis for calculating parking requirements. The total demand, according to ITE standards for the defined study area, has a 1,869 - space shortfall, while using Rich and Associates factors there is only a 1,016 -space shortfall. Rich and Associates' factors used to create the Jefferson model are calculated and derived through our surveys and research into Jefferson City. By customizing the parking model exclusively to the study area, we are able to come up with the most accurate method for calculating parking needs. If national averages were solely relied on for deriving demand, the need would be over estimated. The parking generation rates were not applied to all of the downtown's properties. Parking demand for some of the downtown properties were calculated from specific levels of observed daytime activity. Below, is a description of each of the assumptions applied to the calculation of parking demand. 3.3 - Parking Demand Analysis Assumptions • Assumption 1: It was assumed that parking demand per block was dependent only on the block's gross floor area to be able to equate the zoning requirements to the Rich and Associates calculated requirements. Parking demand computed for one block was not affected by the amount of gross floor area available on surrounding blocks. Therefore, a block with surplus parking supply was unavailable to a block with a deficit parking supply. This assumption was modified in the application of a more detailed and realistic model, which is discussed later in the zone analysis section of the report. • Assumption 2: The parking demand calculations were derived under the assumption that currently occupied properties would remain occupied at the existing level into the future. • Assumption 3: Parking demand is not affected by parking availability, use, location and price. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 3-3 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Table 3B: Parking Demand and Block Surplus/Deficit (Rich and Associates Model) Block ----- Factors Office Retail Service 2.64 2.61 3.51 Restaurant 7.72 Residential Mixed Government Hotel Industrial Special #1 Vacant Demand Added 5 yr. Supply Supply Supply Supply Surplus! Surplus/ (per unit) 1.28 (per room) - (inctitutionai) - (current) Future Peak (on -street) (off-street) (handicap) Total Deficit Deficit 2.77 3.63 0.85 0.63 0.45 0 Demand Demand (current) (future) 1 172,000 624 0 624 55 60 10 125 -499 -499 2 41,400 3 128,088 578 0 578 22 325 3 350 -228 -228 3 1,000 9,600 8 0 8 20 401 1 422 414 414 4 875 6 64,000 55 0 55 7 III 0 188 133 133 5 67,900 255 463 0 463 0 499 6 505 42 42 6* 700,000 2,255 0 2,255 27 726 82 835 -1,420 -1,420 7 I 28,450 14 0 14 45 372 7 424 410 410 8 0 0 0 49 793 0 842 842 842 9 527,047 1,913 0 1,913 242 378 33 653 -1,260 -1,260 10 4,200 1,600 34 185,000 732 0 732 35 182 1 218 -514 -514 11 29 3,600 37 8 45 27 248 0 275 238 220 12 14,850 14,800 39 33 72 6 82 0 88 49 16 13 15,000 53 0 53 37 195 1 233 180 180 14 2,929 1,767 54 31,000 19,800 8,000 3,534 244 8 252 48 138 0 186 -58 -66 Sq. Ft. 63,379 1,767 17,600 875 127 31,000 1,799,835 255 72,000 38,050 21,934 7,016 49 7,064 620 4,580 144 5,344 -1,672 -1,730 (units) (looms) ) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (Stalls) 15 16 17 6,600 10,700 13,248 6,000 3.600 38,808 -- 3,138 3 9,600 17 0 17 66 8 2 76 59 59 4,796 324,000 -- 105,112 1,378 938 2,316 43 103 1 147 -1,231 -2,169 5,200 6,000 23,800 12,486 119 28 147 34 173 4 211 92 64 18 30,600 3,500 2,400 3,000 9,900 104 22 126 46 243 4 293 189 167 19 16,800 59 0 59 39 0 1 40 19 19 20 ■- 120,000 54 0 54 32 0 23 23 21 8,100 4,500 21,800 8 140 850 239 2 241 36 288 0 7 323 84 82 22 20,974 8650 3 15,500 _-- 1,200 33553 64 10 208 45 138 5 188 54 529 23 2 20,114 25740 9,150 4,714 2 25,500 15500 4600 ,600 17388 164 10 174 38 663 2 703 7 539 529 113 39 152 50 828 1 879 766 727 25 ■■- 2 84,000 40 40 70 161 0 2,1 191 191 26 15,400 11,83 2 86,800 90,600 7,806 429 17 447 43 146 5 194 235 -253 27 52,100 3,500 2 60,000 264 0 333 40 214 2 256 -54 -77 28 ■ 11 200 , 61,500 a 2,600 264 0 264 38 159 13 2110 -54 -54 29 12 4,000 17 0 17 8 77 3 88 71 71 30 3 4 0 4 12 14 0 26 22 22 31 3,000 8 18 0 18 20 146 2 168 150 150 32 89,300 5,400 17 276 0 276 44 235 1 280 4 4 33 41,000 12,000 4 2,400 14,800 171 0 171 47 177 3 227 56 56 34 22,500 7,500 29 25,200 214 0 214 65 119 3 187 -27 -27 Sq. Ft. 17,300 19,248 42,408 3,138 3 134,828 508,300 140 3,000 350,600 191,695 4,148 1,130 5,278 816 3,929 59 4,804 656 -474 (units) (rooms) (stalls ) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) (stalls) Notes: 5 ec'al 1 c t' h f f b 'ld' Sum 10,148 -1,016 -2,204 p t on ams . e square oota� s o m mn* such as churches, public schools and hutortcal bmldmgs. Future Demand is calculated by assuming an 80% re -occupancy rate within 5 years for vacant properties and units. Re -occupancy is categorized as retail, office or mixed use as deemed appropriate by location, story etc. Additional future modifications are based on the current redevelopment of the Governor Hotel and the proposed Hotel/Convention Center project. * An adjustment has been made here in order to take into account a 286 space satellite parking lot and shuttle system provided by the State. The block 11 future surplus/deficit figure has been adjusted to relect the net gain of parking stalls from the proposed Dunafon/Prost convention center, hotel and parking structure project. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 3-4 City of Jefferson Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses Parking demand and parking need (computed in the zone analysis section of the report) have entirely different meanings. The current and future parking demands, as shown in Table 3B represent the number of parkers who are and would be attracted to a given parking demand generator (i.e. single purpose building, multi -purpose building, group of buildings on a block or an outdoor amenity). Parking demand assumes that all parking is free, and that there are no parking charges, user restrictions, locational factors or time limitations. Parking need represents the number of parkers who need to be accommodated in a given parking area after the uses of alternative parking areas are considered. Price, use, accessibility and location influence parking need. The parking demand and need definitions were obtained from the Urban Land Institute (1983). 3.4 - Comparison of Current and Future Parking Supplies and Demands As mentioned previously, the parking demand has been calculated for the future condition as well. These results are shown in the fiiture demand and surplus/deficit columns of Tables 3B, which detail the revised square footage of each block and the resulting parking demand using the Rich and Associates model. Table 3C below, summarizes the results of the current and future number of parking spaces needed using ITE standards and using Rich and Associates factors. Time Period Table 3C: Parking Spaces Demanded per Time Period Parking Spaces Demanded Per ITE Standards Current Future -1, 869 -3,099 Difference (1,230) Difference Per Rich & between ITE & Rich _Associates -1,016 (853) -2,204 (895) (1,188) The above table shows that using the ITE factors, an additional 1,869 spaces would be required in the downtown area and using Rich and Associates factors an additional 1,016 spaces will be needed. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 3-5 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses In determining the future parking needs, existing vacant properties were assumed to be re -occupied. Several important developments (one proposed and one underway) within the downtown area were also examined and included in the future demand and supply calculations. Redevelopment plans for the Governor Hotel were extensively analyzed by staff. Key individuals involved with this project were consulted with in order to determine the nature and magnitude of re -occupancy as an office/conference facility. The calculated future peak parking demand for the Governor Hotel redevelopment project is as follows: Category Demand (peak) Conference Facility 383 State Employees 280 Visitor 30 Miscellaneous Office 29 Summary 772 The proposed Dunafon/Prost conference/hotel and parking structure project was also taken into consideration. The net impact from this project will reduce the number of available parking spaces on block 11, as the project will be built on an existing city lot. The peak parking demand summary and net surplus for this project is as follows: Supply Demand (peak) Proposed Hotel and Conference Demand _ -537 Proposed Parking Structure 705 Net Surplus 168 Existing City Lot (removed for project) (178) Project Parking Gain/(Loss) (1 0) The Surplus and Deficit Maps: Zone 1 and 2 on the following pages have the current and future parking supply surplus or deficit for each block within the study zones. In calculating the future demand, a portion (80%) of the current vacant space was re- allocated to a mixed -use category in the surplus and demand calculation tables. The reason for transferring a portion of the vacant space into a use category is to compensate for a desired level of economic growth and urban revitalization that could be expected in Jefferson's downtown. Additional future considerations include proposed development of a convention center, hotel and parking structure (Dunafon/Prost proposal) and the currently underway Governor Hotel redevelopment. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 3-6 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results The percentage of shoppers who drove and parked in on -street spaces was 47.0% (8 of the 17 shoppers). Sixty-two percent of the business -related participants parked at on -street parking spaces. A percentage of employees (5%) were parked in on -street spaces. Typically, twenty-nine percent of those that drove to the downtown parked in a parking structure. The majority of shoppers (39.3%) indicated that they would be visiting only one store. People in the downtown for personal business indicated that they would typically be making two or more stops. These two statistics are relatively low when compared to other downtowns, indicating that the downtown is strongly oriented towards the State offices and Legislature. Downtown Jefferson does not enjoy a high degree of pedestrian activity, which hampers commercial/retail activity in the downtown. 2.8 — Parking Survey Comments • "I think present policy of limiting parking on -street to one hour stinks! Our clients have to get up in the middle of meetings to move their vehicles. I also think the city is paying too much for too many `studies'." • "One -hour parking is not long enough for most of our clients. It is very inconvenient for them to move their cars when trying to do estate planning. Clients complain about one -hour parking all the time." • "If free parking outside the central business district were provided and serviced by a convenient shuttle system, I would use it, but I should be able to call for emergency pick-up situations that arise." • "If I didn't work downtown, I would never go to the stores because of the metered parking. If you park in the State Employees Garage, they are overbooked for spaces so we have to use meters. The state should provide more (parking)." • "The present parking garage is unfriendly and (the) difficult to use method of `getting out of (the) car' to pay, should be eliminated." • "If parking is $20.00 a month, which I pay in a private parking stall, the employer should pay half if they cannot provide parking closer than 3 blocks from the company." • "I feel the $5.00 for overtime parking is way too excessive. Especially, if you have to put money in the meter and it's not on violation, but you've been there more than two hours. If they don't want you in the same spot, you should at least be able to move to another spot in the same area." • "I park in the state employee parking garage on Monroe and State Street and sometimes it is full and I must find on -street parking. Other times, for convenience, there is a need to park closer to my work site. These situations would be for loading / unloading or a need to run errands for business or personal reasons." • "If moneys were not taken from the parking fund and used for other reasons, it would be sufficient to make improvements." • "More parking spaces are a must for growth in the downtown area, especially during the legislative session." Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-25 Jefferson City Section 2 - Methodology and Survey Results • "Metered parking is ridiculous! Our taxes have already paid for the streets." • "I think parking meters should be removed from downtown parking. Set a two-hour or one and a half hour max parking time, chalk the tire and ticket for over parking and tow those who consistently over park." • "Make parking garages long-teiin parking for employees at a reduced rate to encourage employee(s) to use more than metered parking." • "Although, I'm sure this isn't feasible, I'd like to (see) Jefferson City businesses charge a small sales tax and do away with metered parking, which would compensate for the lost revenue. I would certainly be willing to pay such a tax." • "Just in the past month, I was able to get a parking space that I pay for monthly. Before, I had to park at meters or walk three blocks. It was my choice to park at, and pay for, meter parking." • "What really upsets me is the $5.00 overtime fine. If you still have money in the meter, as long as you are paying, you should be able to park all day if you want." Survey Response Rates: Employee - Manager - 500 surveys distributed 250 surveys returned 50% response rate 100 surveys distributed 34 surveys returned 34% response rate Pedestrian - 80 people surveyed Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 2-26 - S U F ' L Mc C AR T S' ST. X° P ESS WAY STATE INFO RMATIOI` CENTER - W. M .3 N S T. ° A C I F I C f' -228 IGHWAY DEPARTMENT GARAGE 0 H I GH S T. cc V, L F J A 842 -1420 0 TRUMAN BUILDING 42 CAPITAL PLAZA HOTEL EDP BUILDING HEALTH LA (./1 3- G 0 MISSOURI STATE CAPITOL BUILDING \,h -1260 _ / i / SUPREME COURT BUILDING -514 C ❑ 01__ PROPOSED FUTURE CONVENTION CENTER, — HOTEL AND PARKING STRUCTURE 0 Z N H'GHNA' & AN S POR A) ION BUILDot•G POST OFFICE CITY OF JEFFERSON M155OUR'! Archt .ctva Pykkg Comobrit 22'_14 ,05,31 3.501, S.Ih5 2 6243)353-5051 5 -501 osaa+ 2+2) h� 53- as (2+2) 355-3250 ra ,c. p�ao 134') 292-095_ ,HMana, Fait 544. p432o0A'chiacccan WEST OFF-STREET PARKING PARK NG DEFOCIT ZONE 1: GOVERNMENT AREA LEGEND CITY BLOCK ii•• MORE THAN 100 DEFICIT 0 TO -100 0 TO 100 MORE THAN 100 SURPLUS CURRENT BLOCK \d NUMBER BLOCK FACE e. L—_ 3-7 I j _''\. _______I---\_____ --) \ AISSOURI STATE {{CAPITOL 9 pUILOING 1 ( I `/ ti -1260 rT 59 GOVERNCR'S MANSION HIGHWAY & TRANSPORT., 11014 BUILDING POST OFFICE El -58 0 180 OM In z 0 tr a E� Sr ATE STATE PA.R^<1NG STRUC'URE in 720 co U-. 0 :\ = T O L A V E. z 0 - f a '❑ • COLE COUYTY COURTHO) SE r 0 PO' ICE STATION \ ; CITY v# — MONROE PLAZA HOTEL -27 = D — J O LJ Ei HALL CHAMRSI •O� COVV+PACF pc 30 22 P 9 CITY OF JEFFER ON antlisotzo Par*. CcnriarAs Ersheortg osz4o Lehner355-5 Rope. Salta 2 �il Fci (34dea) 55- ) 153-33iG Tampa_ e w (E13). 279-C987 \l: Maitland, 6 -8991 AND AXp9A'TrS E-Yk: oark,Ofttsn+aoc.wm FAST OFF -ST ET PARKING PARKING DEFICIT ZONE 2: COMMERCIAL AREA LEGEND CITY BLOCK BLOCK NUMBER MORE THAN 100 DEFICIT 0 TO —100 0 TO 100 MORE THAN 100 SURPLUS CURRENT FUTUPE 0 A BLOCK 1 j FACE City of Jefferson Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses 3.5 - Importance of the Zone Analysis Technique The parking demand shown to this point has been demonstrated with the assumption that parking required on one block could not be met by surplus capacity on any adjacent block. In reality, individuals will often walk several blocks for available or less expensive parking. Alternatively, the zone analysis technique assumes that the parking supply from a group of blocks, as defined by a zone, can be used to accommodate the parking demand generated from a single block or group of blocks. Application of the zone analysis technique is a more realistic approach to deriving the number of parking spaces needed for a defined geographic area. The first step in the zone analysis technique is to consider the parking surplus or deficit for the zone. Table 3B (zone 1) shows that for the blocks south of Chestnut there is an anticipated 1,672-space shortfall. However, this again only considers the blocks contained within the zone. It is likely that some of the demand for parking is being met by blocks outside the Zone 1 boundaries and that consumer preference and price will also affect the demand. An additional consideration when examining Zone 1 is the State shuttle system, which provides employees a free ride to their offices in exchange for parking at a remote lot. Therefore, the daytime deficit of 1,672 spaces is factored by 64% to provide for this likely condition, which reduces the deficit within Zone 1 to 1,070 spaces. The inverse of the factor is used in situations where there is a parking surplus, such as in Zone 2. The surplus of 656 parking spaces is factored by the inverse of 79%, which equals 1.27. The result is that the surplus in Zone 2 increases to 965 parking stalls. Table 3D below shows the calculation to determine the net deficit for each zone. Table 31): Factored Demand Vs Supply CURRENT Zone Parking Supply Daytime Demand (current) Surplus/ (Deficit) Factor Factored Surplus/(Deficit) 1 5,344 7,016 (1,672) 0.64 (1,070) 2 4,804 4,148 656 1.27 833 Sum 1 10,148 11,164 (1,016) (237) FUTURE Zone Parking Supply Daytime Demand (future) Surplus/ (Deficit) I Factor Factored Surplus/(Deficit) 1 5,344 7,064 (1,720) 0.64 (1,101) 2 4,804 5,278 (474) 0.79 (374) Sum 10,148 12,342 (2,194) 1 (1,475) Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 3_9 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 3: Parking Demand & Need Analyses 3.5.1 - Example of Why the Zone Analysis Technique is Applied: Number of current parking spaces demanded 11,164 Number of available parking spaces 10,148 Difference between demand and supply (1,016) The result of the example is a shortfall of 1,016 parking spaces in the study area for the current time period. This shortfall number is extremely misleading since there is not a 100 percent occupancy rate for the total number of on -street and off-street parking spaces. As indicated on the on -street and off-street turnover and occupancy tables in Section 2 of the report, the average peak occupancy rate for on -street spaces was 68% and the average peak occupancy rate for off-street spaces was 84%. At peak times a number of lots and on -street block faces did reach a 100% occupancy rate. It is reasonable to assume that some of the parking spaces demanded in the study area can be accommodated by parking spaces located in areas adjacent to, or nearby the study area's boundaries. The availability of parking outside the study area and the average peak occupancy rates of 68% and 84% did not give creditability to the deficit parking space number of (1,016). The demand shortfall of 1,016 parking spaces is reduced to a shortfall of 237 spaces when the shortfall parking spaces is adjusted for factors such as the State shuttle, available parking outside of the study area and economic factors. The factored parking space shortfall is a more accurate figure when compared to the turnover and occupancy results, especially when the fact that a lot or block face that has an occupancy greater than 85% it appears to be fully occupied to someone trying to park their car. The 85% occupancy "barrier" was exceeded in numerous instances throughout the study area and in a variety of locations. To summarize, the zone analysis technique accounts for alternative parking supplies available within a defined geographic area, and the effect of price, accessibility, use and location of the available parking spaces. As a result, an adjusted number of needed parking spaces for each geographic area must be calculated. The number of demanded parking spaces is greater than the number of needed parking spaces. The needed spaces of 237 represents the minimum number of additional parking spaces that need to be added to the study area. The original demanded number of 1,016 spaces represents the number of parking spaces that if added in to the study area would completely solve all parking shortages and create an ideal situation. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 3-10 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations Section 4 Operational Recommendations Section 4 of the report contains parking recommendations, which are intended to enhance the parking system of downtown Jefferson City. The Recommendations Summary, on the following page, summarizes the recommendations Rich and Associates is proposing. Following our fieldwork and analysis of the city parking, Rich and Associates felt that only some modifications and enhancements would be necessary to bring the system up to its full potential. Recommendations have been developed for several categories. These are: A Meters and Fines B Marketing C Enforcement D Signage E Shuttle System for Downtown Employees The City of Jefferson has many unique characteristics, which present both challenges and opportunities in the development of an efficient and practical parking system. Some of the challenges present in Jefferson include the historical nature of the downtown area, the relatively small percentage of commercially oriented land uses, the presence of the State Capital buildings and the activities associated with State business and the legislature. Currently, the city provides more than 50% of the parking available in Zone 2 (commercial area). This is a desirable situation for a downtown and not entirely common in an urbanized area. As Rich and Associates noted however, not all of the city owned parking areas were well utilized. This can be attributed to two features of Jefferson City. First, there is the relatively steep topography of this river front area. Many of the downtown streets that run north south have an incline that deters pedestrian traffic to and from parking areas south of McCarthy street. While this factor is not the most major influence, it is a consideration when examining parking demand patterns. The major consideration when examining patterns of parking demand are the linear nature of development along High Street and the key areas of demand located along this thoroughfare. Key demand generators are located in and around the State Capital Complex and its ancillary buildings. While these structures have nearby parking areas, the capacities are not great enough to serve the full demand generated. Since other sources of available parking supply are further away, there is a propensity on the part of parkers to seek closer on -street parking. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-1 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations Operational Recommendations Summary A-1 Increase Fine for Overtime Parking Rich and Associates recommends that Jefferson City considers increasing the overtime fine rate to $10. A-2 Meter Color Coding We would also recommend that a color -coding scheme that indicates time limit and rate with appropriate signage be implemented. A-3 Introduce Rub -Off Permits for On -Street Parking Rich and Associates recommends that Jefferson City consider offering rub -off -parking permits. B-1 Marketing Program for Businesses and On -street Parking Businesses and their employees need to be informed of the impact of employees parking on street B-2 Validation System Rich and Associates recommend that the rub -off parking permit program (from A3) be expanded to encompass the downtown off-street parking spaces. B-3 Marketing Pieces for Visitors/Customers Information about the city's parking system can be provided in city and county tourism brochures. The city may also want to advertise in the local newspaper for special holiday or event parking. C-1 Add One Enforcement Officer Position In order to insure consistent enforcement, Rich and Associates recommends that, at a minimum, four full-time enforcement officers are needed in the downtown. D-1 Add Signage The downtown area is in need of introduction and directional signs. D-2 Wayfinding Signs The firm recommends that pedestrian wayfinding or "You Are Here" signs be placed at the entrances or exits of the city's parking deck and at major downtown intersections. E-1 Expanded State Shuttle System Offer the State an incentive in the form of city supplied parking stalls in exchange for allowing other partners to share the States' shuttle system. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 4-2 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations A — Meters and Fines Rich and Associates examined Jefferson's existing meters and their operation. Meters have been installed in all of the key downtown locations and there is currently an effort underway to upgrade all of the older mechanical meters with new electronic ones. The existing system, meter location and rates are well suited to Jefferson City. Additionally, the variety of maximum time lengths offers parkers the choice of long term or short-term parking. During the fieldwork in Jefferson City, Rich and Associates staff noted many examples of a lack of identification on parking meters as towards the meter rate per hour. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by signage and meter color -coding (signage is addressed in Section D of this report). A criticism that appeared as a result of our observations, was that enforcement for expired -meter violations and meter -feeding activity is not adequate. Enforcement is discussed in Section C of this report. Some block faces experienced a low rate of turnover, even though the meters where two-hour maximum. A number of testimonials from local business managers and parkers themselves, indicated that the low overtime parking fine ($5 for an expired meter) was actually an incentive to park in convenient, on -street parking stalls. Since the fine cost is comparable to the off-street parking lot daily rate and there is a chance that the parker may not even receive a ticket, a strong argument can be made to simply park on street and risk the fine. In order to combat this practice, it will be necessary for Jefferson City to increase the overtime fine rate to at least $10, preferably $15 (other mid -western cities, similar in size to Jefferson, charge between $10 and $25 for overtime parking with the average at $15). Additionally, Jefferson City needs to adopt a more zealous approach to parking enforcement (discussed further in Section C of the Recommendations). A number of downtown merchants expressed concern that having to pay for on -street parking was deterring customers from patronizing their establishments. Many cities have some type of system where parking is free for customers of downtown businesses. Jefferson City has in the past used a form of free parking for customers were merchants would give a customer a small paper envelope that contained a dime for parking. The envelope was a way of thanking the customer for their business. A method that has been very successful in other cities, is the use of rub -off permits. Rub -off permits are easy to use and provide a great deal of flexibility at low cost (the parking customer simply scratches off the appropriate areas of the permit and leaves the card in the vehicle). Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4_; Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations Enforcement officers can easily see the validation time and date of the permit. The draw back to this method is access, as the customer would have to visit the merchant before receiving the permit. However, this is true with any validation system. The advantage to this method, cost aside, is the potential for a marketing scheme, which can be implemented in partnership with downtown merchants. In this scenario, the city would sell rub - off permits to the merchants at face value. The merchants could then give the rub -off permits away to customers as a promotion or value-added feature to their service or product. It would also help create repeat business, because the patron would receive the rub -off permit after they had parked. An additional measure that would aid in creating short term, convenient parking for downtown customers, is to designate parking at the ends of the blocks short-term parking only. In general, we would recommend that the ends of all the blocks (at least one stall at each end) should be one hour maximum to allow for higher turnover. In order to maintain a high daily turnover in these stalls, it will be necessary to prevent meter feeding and to regularly monitor these stalls for overtime parking. Recommendations A-1 Increase Fine for Overtime Parkin;, Rich and Associates recommends that Jefferson City considers increasing the overtime fine rate to $10 initially and then $15 after one year (or at the discretion of council). Cost: Increases fine revenue (estimated at $44,200 in the first year, $83,000 thereafter with no added enforcement). A-2 Meter Color Codinb We would also recommend that a color -coding scheme with appropriate signage be implemented. By color coding parking meter poles according to individual time limits, parkers would be able to familiarize themselves with the maximum allowable duration of a given stall more readily. A possible alternative is to paint the curb according to the stall time limits. This alternative does require more maintenance. Generally, in conjunction with this recommendation, we advise our clients that each individual on -street parking stall be striped. In Jefferson's case however, the majority of parking stalls have been striped and only some touch-up striping is necessary. Cost: Budget $10 per meter or $10,100.00. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 4-4 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations A-3 Introduce Rub -Off Permits for On -Street Parkin Rich and Associates recommends that Jefferson City considers offering a rub -off permit that could be distributed by merchants to their customers or used in conjunction with special events or meetings that may take place in the downtown. Similarly, a permit or validation system for off-street applications is examined in Section C of this report. The two systems could be combined to use one common type of rub -off permit. Note: as the cost of the permits exceeds the meter -parking rate, unless more than 10,000 permits are purchased, the permit cost should be fronted by the business community. Cost: Cost of Permits is approximately $500.00 per 1000 (for an order of 10,000 permits). Recommendation Summary — Meters and Fines A-1 Increase Overtime Fine Action Time: Financial Impact: A-2 Meter Color Coding Action Time: Financial Impact: A-1 Introduce Rub -Off Permits Action Time: Financial Impact: B - Marketing of Parking Immediate Increases fine revenue (estimated at $44,200 in the first year, $83,000 thereafter with no added enforcement). Short term Budget $10 per meter or $10,100. Immediate Business community should front cost. Marketing of parking most often involves perception changes. It is imperative for the downtown merchants and businesses owners to understand the role that convenient parking plays in the minds of their customers. Certainly, many downtown merchants see themselves as able to provide a higher level of personal service to their customers and clients. They must understand that this service doesn't begin when that customer or client walks in the door but begins with someone being able to park in close proximity to their destination. The problem is trying to keep downtown employees (or even the business owners) out of these convenient on -street spaces. The marketing of the city's parking system is important to the economic vitality of the downtown. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-5 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations Marketing may consist of the development of maps and coupons to be placed in business and tourism brochures and magazines. There are many benefits to coordinating the marketing efforts with a local Chamber of Commerce. Marketing programs are important not only for increasing parking in off-street lots but also for increasing shopping at downtown stores. Recommendations B-1 Marketing Program for Businesses and On -street Parking Businesses and their employees need to be informed of the impact of employees parking on street. First, the businesses in general must buy into the concept. This may involve public meetings and possibly media reports in print, radio and television broadcasts. The effect on business revenue, employee productivity (lost time spent moving their cars) and on the image of the downtown needs to be championed. This awareness campaign must be on going. Late spring, early fall and winter will be key times. In conjunction with other public relation efforts, a monthly or quarterly flyer/newsletter circulated to all businesses may be considered. The flyer/newsletter could be devoted to "What's going on Downtown" (i.e. general interest) and could also include parking issues. Possibly the Chamber of Commerce could spearhead this effort. Cost: Budget $5,000 annually. B-2 Validation System Currently, the City of Jefferson does have an off-street parking validation system. Rich and Associates recommends that the rub -off permit program identified in recommendation A3 be expanded to encompass the downtown off-street parking spaces, replacing the existing system of validation strips. In order to effectively work, the expanded system would have to be accepted by a significant proportion of the downtown businesses and be advertised appropriately. There are several methods of implementation, either in conjunction with new attended parking (such as in a structure) or with metered parking. These two methods will be discussed in turn. The city may wish to work with a partnering agency in developing an expanded list of private parking areas for the program. The city and/or business community may also wish to negotiate with institutions and private lot owners that do not use their parking areas during weekdays and have these areas available for customer/visitor parking (these opportunities may be limited however). In this case, the vehicle would have to display a validation ticket, described below. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-6 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations A validation program implemented with attended parking is much simpler to operate. The merchants could purchase a book of stamps, with each stamp worth 30 minutes of parking. The patron would present their parking ticket, which they obtained upon entering the parking lot or structure, and the merchant could affix a stamp in conjunction with a purchase. The parking patron, if shopping at multiple locations, could have multiple stamps on their ticket. Under this scenario, if the patron was downtown for two hours and had one hour worth of validated parking on their ticket, they would only pay for one hour of parking. By using the booklets the accounting is much simpler, rather than having to bill back to the business the cost of a particular months validated parking. Normally, businesses would buy the stamps at face value, although some communities have chosen to discount the purchase price. The second method, which would work even without attended parking, is having merchants buy parking vouchers that are valid for "X" minutes of parking (see example on page 4-8). In conjunction with a purchase, these permits could be given to the patron. The difference is that the voucher has a clock face on it. The patron rubs off the time coinciding with the time that they parked their car. For example, if it were 11:00 a.m., the patron would rub off the date and time coinciding with 11:00 a.m. The parking enforcement officer would see this voucher, either on the dash or hanging from the drivers side window facing out, and know that the vehicle parked at 11:00 a.m. and had "X" amount of free parking. The voucher could be color coded for different amounts of free parking, such as Red for 30 minutes, Yellow for 1 hour and Green for 2 hours. The voucher could either be used on their next trip downtown or the patron could elect to walk out to their vehicle and place it in the vehicle. This system would work for either on -street or off-street parking. A further enhancement might be to allow extra time, or a premium, to park in an off-street lot. The voucher could be purchased up -front by the downtown businesses, either at face value or at a small discount. Cost: Estimated $2,000 to $5,000 annually. B-3 Marketing Pieces for Visitors/Customers Information about the city's parking system can be provided in city and county tourism brochures. The city may also want to advertise in the local newspaper for special holiday or event parking. Radio spots may also be used for parking pass give-aways. Also, informational brochures about the downtown's parking system can be placed in downtown businesses. The brochures may offer free one -day passes for the parking lots or on -street parking spaces. Cost: $2,000 to $10,000 annually Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4_7 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Q- 0 > 0 Y C) (Jo �. rn �0 -of a` (r4 n 0 C) C w a 00 YOU MUST SCRATCH OUT FIVE BOXES TO INDICATE THE YEAR, o MONT+, DAY AND TIME OF ARRIVAL IN HOURS AND MINUTES. SEE REVERSE FOR CONDITIONS OF USE. -AP INCORPORATED VILLAGE of NEW HYDE PARK HOURLY PARKING VOUCHER 25C Failure to clearly validate and display this voucher may result in the issue of a violation notice. ,JAN, FEB JMARI APR;MAYl.ltirl 1.tU1. ! AUG! SEP UfT. N►fj DEC INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF NEW HYDE PARK VOUCHER VALUE -250 - VALID FOR ONE HOUR INSTRUCTIONS • On arrival, indicate year, month, day. hour and minute by scratching off appropriate panels with small coin or fingernail. • Display the voucher on the passenger side dashboard. *The maximum allowed parking time is according to regulations. • Unexpired time may be used at other voucher parking places • You may display a voucher before parking restrictions begin by indicating restriction commencement time in advance. TO ADVERTISE HERE CONTACT v -ti wi!tix;I Section 4: Operational Recommendations Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations Recommendation Summary — Marketing B-1 Marketing Program to Business Owners Action Time: Short term Financial Impact: B-2 Validation System Action Time: Financial Impact: Estimated cost $2,000 annually. Short -Term Estimated cost $2,000 to $5,000 annually. B-3 Marketing Pieces for Visitors/Customers Action Time: Short -Term Financial Impact: Estimated cost $2,000 to $10,000 annually. C - Enforcement Adequate and proper enforcement is one of the most important elements of a successful parking system. The city's residents, employees, merchants and officials should know the objectives of the enforcement policies, and the level of enforcement should be fair and consistent. Review of Jefferson's enforcement practices found that the enforcement staff have a good understanding of policies and procedures for enforcing on -street and off-street parking regulations. Two parking enforcement officers were assigned to the study area and a third was being hired at the time of Rich and Associates Fieldwork. The enforcement staff is responsible for overtime and expired parking meters. The number of tickets written by the officers is within the range of other communities with reasonable enforcement. These statistics are based on surveys undertaken by Rich and Associates of the following cities: Ashland, KY, Beckley WV, Parkersburg, WV, Scranton, PA, Huntington WV, Ashland KY, Trenton, PA, and Wilmington NC. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-9 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations The tickets per day are calculated by dividing the number of tickets issued in one year (1998) by the number of enforcement days worked by enforcement officers. Example: Parkersburg, WV. 13,500 tickets issued 3 enforcement officers (multiplied by 250 days per year) 13,500 divided by 750 equals 18 tickets per officer per day Considering the size of the area they cover and their responsibilities, three officers are not enough to guarantee complete coverage of the study area. The officers are responsible for 1,436 on -street parking spaces and 19 municipal lots for a total of more than 2,400 spaces. One enforcement officer can generally cover 600 to 800 spaces per day, depending on the geographic area and weather. The use of vacation, sick and personal leaves by one officer, leaves only two officers on duty at times. There are no substitute officers available to undertake patrolling duty when other officers take vacations or are off for other reasons. Additionally, parking enforcement officers are responsible for snow removal and other non -technical, maintenance tasks, which ties up one or more individuals. Therefore there will be days when inadequate enforcement is taking place. The result of the lack of adequate enforcement is a loss in consistent enforcement efforts, which leads to a disregard of parking regulations. Random enforcement of parking regulations is worse than not enforcing the parking regulations. Parking violators that are ticketed and fined view the parking enforcement efforts as arbitrary, capricious and unfair. Additionally, consistent enforcement is a necessary factor in maintaining the specified level of revenue generation outlined in the pro forma analysis. An effective parking system requires that all parking regulations be consistently enforced with fine levels high enough to deter repeat offenders. Maintaining a high turnover is important to Jefferson's economic health. However, achieving high turnover may not be possible without parking regulation enforcement. The current practice of having enforcement officers patrolling Monday to Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm suits the patterns of usage in downtown Jefferson well. Enforcement officers also take down license plate numbers and chalk tires in problem areas. However, the patrol routes need to be randomized. Parking enforcement in Jefferson should involve covering only a portion of the district at a time by varying the day and area in which parking regulations are enforced. Effective parking enforcement will occur if the scheduled areas of enforcement vary daily and weekly, since parking violators are sometimes aware of the patterns of enforcement. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-10 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations C-1 Add One Enforcement Officer Position In order to insure consistent enforcement, Rich and Associates recommends that, at a minimum, four full-time enforcement officers are needed in the downtown. The current routes should be expanded to encompass a larger area, which would include all of the meters in the downtown, as well as the lots that the officers currently patrol. Additionally, the routes should be randomly selected so that parking regulation violators are not able to defeat the threat of a ticket by watching the pattern of enforcement on particular blocks or lots. Cost: Add one full-time parking enforcement person ($18,000 to $24,000 annually to start). There would also be some up -front costs ($3,000). Fine revenue however, should increase. Recommendation Summary — Enforcement C-1 Add One Enforcement Officer Action Time: Immediate Financial Impact: Costs $3,000 upfront + $18,000 to $24,000 annually. Revenue increase approximately $12,500 (at $10 per ticket). D - Signage Recommendations for signage and amenities include parking signage for the city parking lots and parking area enhancements. Jefferson has directional, locational, and identification signs, which aid in guiding parkers to parking areas. These signs need to be augmented with more directional and introductional signage. The signs used by Jefferson City meet the criteria that Rich and Associates recommends for good quality signs, in so far as the signage is at an appropriate height and is standardized in color and logo usage throughout the downtown. (Please see Exhibit 4-B on page 4- 13 for examples of signage that Rich and Associates would recommend for Jefferson). The four types of parking signage that increases drivers' wayfinding experience and should be used in an urban area are: Introduction: Introduction parking signage alerts drivers approaching the downtown of the locations of the publicly owned, off-street parking lots. This type of signage is distinctive in color and size, and it can be characterized by unique logos. The signs display the names of the off-street parking lots and the names of their streets. The signs are located on the street, and are mounted on poles of standard heights. Directional: Directional -parking signage is distinct in color, size and logo and directs drivers to off-street parking areas. The signs are mounted on poles at standard heights, on the streets. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 4-11 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations Locational: Parking locational signage complements the directional parking signage. The signs have arrows pointing to the off-street lots. The signs are mounted on poles at standard heights and located on street. Identification: Identification signage is placed at the entry of each parking lot. The name of the parking area is identified and the type of parking available at the parking area is listed on the signage. The identification signage is distinctive in color and size, and it is located on a pole at a lower height. ---One-6 again, Jefferson City has already implemented a good signage program. Rich and Associates' only recommendation with respect to the city's parking system signage is that more directional signs be added and that introductory signs be placed at the extents of the downtown core area. Directional signs need to be located systematically along the major streets in the downtown. Introductory signs need to be located on all major roadways that lead to the downtown. These two fundamental types of signs are necessary in the downtown corridor and are important in alerting motorists to off-street parking sites. An example of a location that would benefit from the use of these two types of signs, is the municipal parking deck. This deck is underutilized for two reasons; one being that motorists unfamiliar with Jefferson City may be unaware of its presence. The second reason being that local motorists are resistant to use the deck's pay -on -foot system. The city parking structure also needs to have its signage upgraded. Specifically, the entry and exit signage needs to be more prominently displayed on the building facade. Directional signage within the structure is sometimes difficult to understand and not well placed for a driver to be able to readily see and understand. The complex nature of the interior layout of this structure, demands that clear, concise and easily readable signage is utilized throughout. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-12 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Wayfinding Identification Jefferson City Section 4 - Operational Recommendations PARKING Introduction Locational Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 4-13 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations Recommendations D-1 Add Signage The signs displayed on the previous page are of the reflector type. The signs are provided as examples for each type of signage. Rich and Associates' recommends that the city use. In particular, the downtown area is in need of introduction and directional signs and the city deck signs need to be updated and improved. Cost: Budget $13,000. D-2 Wavfinding Sit,ns The firm recommends that pedestrian wayfinding or "You Are Here" signs be placed at the entrances or exits of the city's parking deck and at major downtown intersections, to help pedestrians orient themselves in the downtown. These signs indicate where the pedestrian is standing in relation to the downtown's streets and landmarks. As an alternative to installing wayfinding signs, the kiosk style pedestrian maps could be used. Cost: Budget $5,000 to $15,000 depending on number and design of sign. Recommendation Summary —Add Signage Add Introduction, Directional and Way Finding Signs. D-1 Introductional and Directional Signage Action Time: Short term Financial Impact: Cost Estimate: $13,000 D-2 Wayfinding Signs Action Time: Financial Impact: Short term Cost Estimate: $5,000 to $15,000 Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-14 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations E — Shuttle System for Downtown Employees Initiatives such as shuttle buses, park and ride and car pooling incentives are some very useful programs, which have been successfully employed in urbanized areas. The State has experienced a great deal of success in implementing a shuttle system for its employees. Shuttle systems must meet some fundamental criteria in order to work. First, there must be a large enough group of people willing to use the system in order for it to be feasible. Secondly, the shuttle must run several times per hour throughout the day in order to allow shift workers and people that must leave during the day the ability to return to their vehicles. Third, the shuttle system must be at low cost or no cost to the rider in order to encourage usage. The advantages that the State has in operating such a system are; that they can provide the service for free to employees; they have a captive audience and the employees begin and end work at predetermined times, allowing for scheduling of the shuttle. The disadvantages that the city would have in providing such a service are that a shuttle would have to run more often and to a greater number of locations in order to serve the needs of a diverse downtown workforce. Ridership levels experienced by the State would never be enjoyed by a public system, since resistance to the inconvenience of having to park, board a shuttle and then arrive at work would not be acceptable to all of the people. In examining a shuttle system for Jefferson City, we felt that the initiative would not be successful enough to generate sufficient interest or revenue to pay for the costs. This conclusion is based on several factors, such as the pedestrian, employee and manager surveys, local demographics and economic condition analysis and interviews with stakeholders, which were specifically examined with remote lot / shuttle options in mind. A relative comparison between a public busing system and a shuttle system can be drawn. In the case of Jefferson City, a public shuttle system can be expected to obtain a ridership level only slightly higher than that experienced by the public buses that the city already has. One problem that would arise from an initiative such as a remote shuttle lot program, is the strong likelihood that the costs associated with running and maintaining a public transportation program, will exceed the revenue generated by that program. In this scenario, the project would always be a financial burden to the city. Chattanooga, Tennessee, as an example, has a remote parking / shuttle operation. We believe that in this instance the capital costs for the project came from local, state and federal grants and not from the city's parking fund. Finally, a shuttle system must either use a "carrot or stick" approach. Where parking fees are very high in the core, shuttle parking becomes more acceptable, especially where the charge for parking in the remote lots is low or free. Forcing the general public to use shuttle parking is difficult if not impossible. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-15 Final Report, Aug. 1999 Jefferson City Section 4: Operational Recommendations An alternative that would benefit the city and make more sense from an economic perspective, would be for the city to work closely with the State in encouraging the State (as the State is the largest downtown employer in Jefferson) to further develop their existing shuttle system. The State system should be expanded to encompass the Governor Hotel development when it is complete. Additionally, a partnership potential exists for the County and State to share the shuttle, were shuttle services are offered to County employees or to any other downtown employer who may desire to participate. Under this scenario financial responsibility for the shuttle would fall to the participants as they would be assessed and billed directly by the State. In return for the State opening up its shuttle system to other users with similar work schedules, the city could designate a number of lots within the downtown to the shuttle system use. Recommendations E-1 Expanded State Shuttle System Offer the State an incentive in the form of city supplied parking stalls in exchange for allowing other partners to share the States' shuttle system. Cost: N/A Recommendation Summary — Shuttle System Encourage State to allow other agencies and major downtown employers to participate in the States employee shuttle system. E-1 Expanded State Shuttle System Action Time: Short term Financial Impact: Savings from not having to build additional parking. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 4-16 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 5: Changes to Parking Structure Section 5 5.1 — Changes to Parking Structure at Exit Several years ago the city removed the cashier from their parking structure on Madison Street and implemented a pre -pay system that uses a pay -on -foot station and validator for hourly parkers to exit the parking structure. Permit parkers utilize a card reader system. Very few municipalities have implemented a pay -on -foot system. In this respect, Jefferson City was very progressive. The typical problems with a pay -on -foot system though, were experienced. First, people not familiar with the system would not prepay, then drive up to the exit only to find no cashier. This caused public relations problems and required staff intervention. Rich and Associates reviewed various options for the parking structure exiting in light of the current use and operations and then based on the increased use projected as a result of the re -occupancy of the Governor Hotel. As part of the State occupying the Governor Hotel, 100 spaces in a segregated area will be allocated to State employees in the structure on the roof and another 50 spaces for visitors will be available in the structure. Based on the analysis above, Rich and Associates concluded that the exiting strategy needed modification. The pay -on -foot concept should not be eliminated, but enhanced by adding a cashier. The pay -on -foot / cashier strategy will allow hourly parkers who are familiar with the system to exit quickly. For parkers not familiar with the system, it will allow them to go to a cashier. The pre -pay exit should be marketed as an express exit using appropriate signage. Two schemes were developed that incorporated the existing pay -on -foot system with a cashier. The intent of the changes are: 1) to provide an additional exit lane to accommodate higher levels of traffic projected, 2) keep pay -on -foot system but supplement with cashier at peak times and finally 3) to limit the scope of the changes with respect to cost. The two schemes developed were: Scheme 1 - Cashier lane separates from pre-pay/permit exit lane. Scheme 2 — Cashier lane and exit lane in parallel. Either of the schemes eliminates 15 parking spaces due to the required size and layout of the queue area. In both schemes, the pay -on -foot system is maintained. We recommend moving the pay -on -foot machine on the lower level to the main floor to increase use. This will provide two pay -on -foot machines at the main level. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 5-1 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 5: Changes to Parking Structure One problem, that either scheme has, is that someone entering off Madison may turn left down the first available aisle, where there may be no parking space. In order for them to re -circulate, they will have to go through the exit area. SCHEME 1: This scheme addresses the re -circulation problem by having two exit lanes that are separate from each other. The cashier lane is located at the far left. If an hourly parker has chosen not to pre -pay, they will have to go through the cashier. Here their ticket will be processed and they will be given an exit ticket to use at the validator (or lag time reader). The pre -pay or permit parker will by-pass the cashier lane and go to the "express lane" where they will either use their card (at a card reader) or their exit ticket in the validator (lag time reader). This configuration allows a long queue at the final exit lane and an open re -circulation path into the parking structure. With this scheme a parker who has used the cashier must approach the second gate and use a validated ticket to exit (using the lag time reader). The reason for this is that the lane with gate and validator is used by parkers who pre -pay, have permit (cardholders) or people who pay at the cashier. While it adds a second wait for the parker that has paid at the cashier, this is the only way to open the re -circulation from the ground floor to upper floors. The pros and cons of Scheme 1: Pros 1. Opens queue area to two lanes. 2. Provides one lane for cashier and one lane for prepay and card holders. a) Large queue for pre-pay/card holders 3. By-pass lane is open in case someone enters ground floor area and can not find an open space, they can re -circulate into rest of parking structure. Cons 1. Lose 15 spaces to expanded queue. 2. The parker that uses cashier must receive a validated ticket to put into the validator (lag time reader) at the second exit. 3. Can be confusing to have the cashier lane separated with a non - controlled lane that goes to either re -circulate or main validator (card) exit. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 5-2 City of Jefferson Section 5: Changes to Parking Stricture SCHEME 2: This scheme puts both exits (cashier and validator/permit) in the same location, with barrier gates. In this scheme, there is no secondary barrier gate to go through at the exit to the street. This means that if someone enters the ground floor parking area and can not find a space they can not re -circulate directly, but must go through the cashier. The cashier will then have to process the ticket (under five minutes is free?) and would then direct the parker to go around and use the upper floors. There would be a similar loss of 15 parking spaces and there would be spaces set -aside for people to park and pay at the pay -on -foot station. The pros and cons of Scheme 2 are: Pros 1. Open queue area to two lanes. 2. Provides one lane for cashier and one lane for pre -pay or card holders (though a smaller queue area for pre -pay or card holders than Scheme 1). 3. Parkers who use cashier will not require validated ticket to exit at another gate (as in Scheme 1). Cons 1. Lose 15 spaces to expand queue area. 2. If someone enters the at -grade parking area and there are no spaces, they must go through cashier to re -circulate. 3. Queue area for pre -pay / card holders is smaller than Scheme 1. 4. Must relocate existing card reader/ validator gate from current location. The following are cost estimates for the two schemes. The capital cost for both schemes are about the same. Scheme 1 $59,225 Scheme 2 $65,150 The costs include equipment relocation, new booth, fee computer, signage, etc. An additional cost applicable to either scheme is the cost of staffing, which will be approximately $36,000 to $48,000 (based on the starting salary for a parking enforcement officer) per annum for a booth attendant. This assumed two attendants staffing the booth an average of 13 hours a day over six days. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 5-3 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 5: Changes to Parking Structure Recommendations: There are valid reasons to choose either scheme. In our opinion, Scheme 1 may be slightly more confusing for people who pay at the cashier because they would have to insert a validated ticket on the exit lane at the street to get out. This scheme however, does simplify re -circulating for parkers who have entered the parking area directly behind and can not find an open space. This scheme also provides more queue space. Based on the above we recommend Scheme 1. 5.2 Modifications for State Parking The current program calls for about 100 spaces to be reserved for State employees on the roof of the city's parking structure. Reserved in this case would be "nested". Entrance to the State parking area would require the employee to card into the area. Since their parking rate will be lower, these spaces should be at the roof. Additionally, there will be up to 50 spaces available for guests, visitors and attendees going to the Governor Hotel. These spaces will not be reserved or segregated in anyway. Several options were investigated, but only two seem to be viable: Option 1: Nest the fifth level (roof) of the original structure (about 86 spaces). Option 2: Nest the fifth level (roof) of the original parking structure and the fourth level (roof) of the addition (total of about 137 spaces). Option 2 was ruled out because it reserved more spaces than the program required. Option 1 would work as follows; a State employee would card into the parking structure and then drive up to the roof, where they would card in again at the entrance to the State parking area. When exiting, they would have to card out of the nested area and then again out of the parking structure. If a state employee carded in the structure, but did not card into the nested area, they would either not be allowed to exit or allowed to exit and the event would be flagged on the computer. This would get the employee card number and name. If a State employee went to the effort to card into the nested area then immediately out again to park under cover for example, they would not be allowed to exit the parking structure or the event would be flagged as explained above. This option only nests 86 spaces. The balance of the 14 spaces would be handicapped or be reserved for State employees by signage on the fifth floor adjacent to the aisle that leads to the nested area entrance. Nesting of the State parking area (Option #1) will require two gates, card readers, modification to the card system, curbing and signage. The estimated cost for these changes is $34,500. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 5-4 Final Report, Aug. 1999 JEFFERSON 353:1136 -IIID,f... Mti7AAi .`s.vmti?aOA�ciwvc..,;i-. ....... ........ ....... ... .................... ...... ......... .. .. .. ........ . . . . . . . . ................. ..... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . .................. ..... ....... .............. ....................... . . ........... .................. A MODIFICATIONS' TO E7(IT =. GASt(ER [AiV+ ''SEPARATE FROM RRE PAY' ERFi11T EXIT E /// ///.. A/ II\\,,p1=.\\\\\\%\\\i \\\I:\\>1 \\II 1 .g .• J111.16 -pro: 2s:W4.4nod a as MKMWI +sa4 ze F)3 — F i8) 353-X3d � � we .140 CASHIER LANE iN PARALLEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z.� 0 r� 0 6 Dtx 0 30 r• II 0 a= y C0 A Il 2 V C STATE MP E L rin:,UUNIT * JEFFERSON 2s=W WW1?* six:i St/{(Z4u • 33W. 0� '° • a`'`' e u�i sss:xsa r o�m (T.47p. 11 W9mFlo . J� {tl A67-H99t;. .... ....................................................... TO PARKIl G STRUCTURE ' • 8 MODIRCATIONS FOR STATE PARKING . .:' OUTBOUND SoiarAtitiroia. 2.840i A8.:z T Fyyo (WTf B67 8Y91: :.• ... . ... ...... ....... ........ ... ... ...... ............... ... .: ..... ............................. ................ ........... ... ........................... . .............................. ... .. .... .. ............... ...... ...... ........... . CHANGES ......... ............................ ......... .......... ..... . ..... .. ......................................... ......... .... ........ ... ... ........... ......... . .. . .................. ... TQ P, RKING ... ..... .. . .... ...... ... ............... ............. ........ STRUCTURE ............... ......... ........... ..... .................. ... . . . .... ............ .... . .... ... . . ............. ...... 'R- MODIFICATIONS FOR: STATE PARKING INBOUND . .... .. .. . . .. . . . .. ...... ....................... .... .. . .... ........ ... ......... ... . ... ............ .... City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis Section 6 6.1 - Options For Additional Parking Our preliminary analysis has demonstrated that overall there is a relatively small shortfall in the current supply of parking in downtown Jefferson City. However, our analysis has also illustrated a more substantial parking -supply -deficiency within pocket areas of the city. These parking deficiencies are a product of both the undulating topography present in the downtown and the linear nature of development along High Street. In Section 4 of the report, it was determined that at least 237 additional spaces are currently needed in Zones 1 and 2. The calculation of future needs revealed that an additional 1,238 spaces, at a minimum, will be needed. The future parking space deficiency of 1,475 spaces is based on the Governor Hotel redevelopment project, the proposed convention center and hotel project and an expectation of economic growth resulting in commercial infill within downtown Jefferson City. Peak parking demand in the western downtown area occurs chiefly within blocks dominated by the State, such as the Truman Building, State Information Center and Highway Department Garage. The State has provided parking for their employees within surface lots adjacent to these areas, in satellite shuttle lots and in two parking structures. Additional peak demand areas occur along High Street, within what Rich and Associates refers to as blocks 10, 16 and 26. These areas have access to parking on adjacent blocks, however the available parking is not easily accessible in some cases. Additionally, our long-term demand projections demonstrate that the deficits present within these blocks will increase to a point where parking demand will exceed parking supply. In addressing the demand needs of the downtown area, we encounter three essential problems. First, the areas of greatest demand are not adjacent to each other, and specific supply solutions targeted to one site will not service all areas simultaneously. Secondly, the relatively steep topography present in the downtown eliminates any potential parking supply sites north of Capitol Avenue or south of McCarty Street. The third constraint present in the downtown area is the need to consider removing existing buildings when seeking a land parcel large enough to accommodate an efficient parking structure. In light of the current and future parking demands and the development constraints present in the downtown, Rich and Associates has developed seven alternative solutions. Not all of the solutions are equally feasible, but they are presented here for the purpose of examination and discussion. The following is Rich and Associates' review and recommendations of the options available to Jefferson City. With these options, there are site and design analysis assessments for various parking structure schemes. Section 6.3 offers Rich and Associates recommendations for the best alternatives available to Jefferson City. These analyses are the opinions of our senior partners and they include financial impact statements and construction cost breakdowns, were applicable. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-1 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis City of Jefferson Options: A. Build a parking structure on Block 27 (at the corner of High and Adams Street). • Two design options have been proposed for this site. One option utilizes the existing surface lot. The second would involve the demolition of two buildings on the site. • The key advantage to this option is that by locating a structure on this block, the parking needs of the county, as well as other adjacent demand generators are met. Additionally, this site offers an existing city owned lot that is large enough to accommodate a parking structure (though one that is less efficient). A larger structure that offers a higher degree of efficiency could also be considered, if the two existing buildings on the north east corner of the lot were to be purchased and cleared to create a larger lot size. With the location of this structure, a partnership potential exists between the city and the county. • In terms of meeting the parking demand of the entire downtown, this particular option only satisfies the parking needs of the immediate area. Additionally, in order to develop the best structure concept for this site it will be necessary to obtain and remove the two existing structures on the corner of High and Adams Street. B. Build a parking structure on Block 27 (on Adams between High and McCarty Streets). • A design option was considered that crossed the alley with a parking structure. This would cover the alley and adjacent parking lot. • While the site could possibly bridge to High Street, the site itself could only accommodate a slope floor/slope floor scheme, which would not work well on this site and could be more costly than A above. C. Build a parking structure on Block 33 (partially on lot owned by city). • A parking structure, to work on this site would require the acquisition of at least five properties that front on High Street. There are currently 65 spaces on this site. • A parking structure on this site would have to be a sloped floor/sloped floor structure. • While a relatively efficient structure can be built on this site (270 spaces in what would appear to be grade plus 3.5 levels), the site is too far from the majority of the parking demand generators to make it a viable site at this time. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-2 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis D. Demolish existing city parkin structure on Block 23 (corner of IYladison Street and Capitol Avenue) and replace it with a new structure. • Our proposal for this site is for a new structure that would have similar dimensions to the existing structure, but would have a greater capacity due to a more efficient design. • The benefit to this option is that the new structure would provide approximately 30% more parking spaces and the opportunity to design a structure that would have greater appeal to users. • The disadvantage to this option is the high cost of removing the existing structure and then rebuilding a new one. The resulting cost per gained parking space would be very high. Also, there is still outstanding debt revenue on this deck. E. Build a parking structure on Block 14 (along High Street between Washington and Jefferson). • This option would involve the demolition of two structures adjacent to the existing surface lot to create a usable site. • Because this area is a high demand area due to the proximity of the Supreme Court and other adjacent uses, a structure built here would satisfy a strong localized need. Additionally, there may be the opportunity to share the cost of development for this site between the city and State. • The disadvantage to this particular option is that an existing structure would need to be purchased and removed in order to provide a site large enough to build an efficient parking structure. Additionally, this option does not meet the parking needs of the eastern portion of the downtown area. F. Build a parking structure on Block 17 (Exchange Bank Lots) This option would use the two lots on either side of the alley that are owned by Exchange Bank. • A walkway could be cut through to High Street from the parking structure. • This site is centrally located between demand generators. • Site could only accommodate angle parking scheme with a scissor ramp design. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-3 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis G. Develop a shuttle system that would serve the entire downtown area. This option could be developed in conjunction with the existing State employee shuttle system to include expanded coverage area and public accessibility. ■ The advantages to this option include the low cost of providing easy access to existing city surface lots in the downtown area that are underutilized. As the State already has a shuttle system in place for its employees, a partnership potential exists between the city, State, and county where the existing State system could be expanded to service all of the downtown needs. The drawback to this concept is that ridership would be relatively lore, as the majority of people surveyed indicated that they would be unwilling to participate in even a free shuttle system. Over time and through promotion ridership could increase, however this system would need to be financially supported as long as it was in place. A parking structure, on the other hand, would eventually pay for itself and once paid for would generate a net revenue. H. Do Nothing. ■ This option has no long-term financial benefits, as by doing nothing, parking demand in the downtown area will increase, eventually forcing the city to provide a solution. By preemptively addressing the parking needs of the downtown, the inflationary costs of delaying construction are nullified. Additionally, the provision of parking will aid in downtown economic development efforts. 6.2 - Site and Design Analysis As part of the scope of work for professional services, the City of Jefferson required an evaluation for the development of an additional parking structure in the study area if one was required. The additional parking structure would be based on the demand analysis, as provided as part of the scope of work for the parking study. As previously discussed, a parking structure(s) is the best option to relieve parking shortfalls in the current and future situations. While remote shuttle lots were investigated as an option in Jefferson City, all of the indicators concluded that a public shuttle system would fall short of ridership levels necessary to support such a project. A more thorough examination of the shuttle system is offered in Section 4 of this report. In the short term, it is recommended that the city pursue a parking structure on Block 27. For the long term it may be possible to develop a parking structure on Block 17, over the two lots owned by the Exchange Bank. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-4 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis 6.3 — Recommendations for Structured Parking Based upon a review of the options, we believe that options A, E and F are viable alternatives. Though Rich and Associates prepared schemes for all of the parking structure options, only the schemes on Block 27 (Schemes A or B) are shown at this time, because it is the short-term solution. Discussion of Parking Structure Schemes Block 27 There were two original schemes developed for this site on the corner of High and Adams Streets. Scheme (A); puts the parking structure on the existing city parking lot that enters off High Street in a north/south orientation. Because the site is not wide enough (without the acquisition of additional property), a single loaded / double loaded module layout must be used. An efficient parking structure will generally have two double loaded modules in tandem. Therefore, this design is very inefficient with an average of 410 square feet per space compared to 330 square feet per space for the two full module design. This scheme develops 293 spaces on grade and four and a half supported floors. The entry and exit would be from High Street and from the alley. This scheme would allow the two existing buildings to remain. The only loss in parking spaces would be from the city lot. A variation of this would be to acquire the first building adjacent to the parking lot (building contains a Mexican Restaurant). The orientation would remain the same. Two double loaded modules could be developed that would generate 319 spaces on grade plus three and one half floors. The efficiency of this scheme would be square feet per space. The second scheme must remove the two buildings on the site although the parking structure is set back from High Street. This was done to reduce the cost of the parking structure since building a parking structure over an occupied space is more expensive and in this case would have compromised the design. Also, the parking structure footprint covers the alley which means that a fire wall would have to be constructed because there would be no setback from the back of the buildings. The scheme develops 298 spaces on grade plus three and a half supported levels and leaves +/- 8,500 square feet of free standing building space for development or lease. Both orientations (north / south and east/west) generate + 300 spaces. Scheme A with the double loaded / single loaded module is less efficient than Scheme A with two double loaded modules or Scheme B. The north/south orientation (Scheme A) is less costly because there is less retaining wall then in the east/west orientation (Scheme B). In terms of construction cost the per space costs are: Scheme A: double / single loaded module $13,265 / space Scheme A: all double loaded modules $11,957 / space Scheme B: all double loaded modules $12,456 / space Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-5 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis After several meetings, the city determined that a different option should be investigated on Block 27. This would involve Scheme A and the single loaded/double loaded module plan, and a single level (from the High Street face). This would actually be grade plus two supported levels from the alley and grade plus one supported level off of High Street, Approximately 133 spaces could be developed for a net gain of 74 spaces, because there are 59 spaces currently on the site. The cost for this option is approximately $16,870 per space. The significantly higher cost is the result of spreading certain fix costs over fewer spaces such as earthwork, foundations, retaining walls and elevator shafts and elevator. We did not prepare a separate drawing for this option. Project Costs and Pro Forma Project and finance costs for Block 27 (all three schemes and the option) are shown on the following pages. The following is a definition of terms: 1. Construction Cost: The estimate cost of construction only. 2. Professional Fees: Design fees. 3. Geo-technical and Survey: Cost of soil testing and survey. 4. Land Costs: Based on assessed values of property and does not assume business relocation costs. 5. Legal: Cost of legal for contracts and property acquisition. 6. Contingency: 7.5% of construction cost. 7. Project Cost to be Financed: Total of above. 8. Financing Terms: Either 15 or 20-year amortization. 9. Interest Rate: 5.5% 10. Term of Construction: 12 months. 11. Interest During Construction: This represents the interest due on the funds borrowed, which are received up front. 12. Interest Income: Interest earned on pre -borrowed fiords. 13. Legal and Accounting: Normal fees. 14. Debt Service Reserve: Parity bonds require one-year principal and interest to be held in reserve. 15. Financing Fees: Points paid to lender. 16. Cost of Issuance: Miscellaneous costs. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-6 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis The following are the debt service payments for the different schemes at 15 and 20 year amortization. 15 year 20 year Amortization Amortization Scheme A (double/single loaded module) Option 1 (single level off High Street) Scheme A (double/double loaded module) Scheme B Operating Costs $537,000 $442,000 $313,000 $258,000 $553,000 $455,000 $563,000 $464,000 In order to complete the pro forma, Rich and Associates projected the operating expenses for the new parking structure. The operating costs assumed a meter operation with permit parkers. The operating costs for each structure is estimated at about $90,300 and is made up of the following: Labor (enforcement and management) $39,060 Maintenance $ 8,260 Parking Supplies $ 6,800 Utilities $12,000 Repair $ 4,500 Sinking Fund for Repair and Replacement $ 4,500 $39,060 Pro Forma A pro forma was prepared for the smaller parking structure option on Block 27. The goal was to prepare a scenario that showed the existing parking system and the new parking structure meeting a debt service coverage of 1.15. The pro forma on the following page shows the actual revenue and expense for 1998 and 1999 and projection for 2000 to 2010 for the existing system. There are bonds currently outstanding with debt service payments until 2010. With the exception of the fine rate increasing as recommended in this report, the parking rates were not increased until the current system did not meet the 1.15 debt service coverage. In order to accomplish this goal, parking ratio were increased in 2003, 2006 and 2009. The overall rate increase each time was 10%, but the effect was not fully felt until the second year of an increase. Typically, there is a drop off in usage the first year Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-7 Final Report, Aug. 1999 City of Jefferson Section 6: Site and Design Analysis of a rate increase. The fine rates were not increased beyond $15.00 as shown in the report. The new 133 space parking structure used the same parking rates as the existing system. Monthly parkers were allocated to 106 spots and hourly parkers to 27 spaces. As can be seen by the pro forma, the parking structure shows a loss each year. How can the parking structure be financed? First, no equity has been shown going into this project. Equity could come from the final balance from the parking system or from a joint venture with the county. This would reduce the debt service. Second, a larger structure could be built on this site to reduce the cost per space, but ultimately there will still be a deficit without equity. Finally, the overall system parking rates could increase greater than 10% to subsidize the new structure. Rich and Associates, Inc. — Parking Consultants 6-8 Final Report, Aug. 1999 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME A TWO DOUBLE MODULES 319 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 15 YRS W/ DSR 1 Construction Cost 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) 3 Geotech and Survey 4 Land Cost 5 Legal 6 Contingency $3,814,280 $229,000 $30,000 $215,000 $45,000 $286,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $4,619,280 8 Financing Term 9 Interest Rate 10 Term of Construction 15 Years 5.5 % 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction 12 Interest Income 13 Legal & Accounting Fees 14 Debt Service Reserve 15 Financing Fees (Points) 16 COST OF ISSUANCE 40% @ 5% @ 1.00% @ 2.00% @ 0.25% $305,000 ($111,000) $55,000 $553,000 $111,000 $14,000 17 Total Financing Costs 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed 19 Total Amount of Bonds $927,000 $4,619,280 $5,546,280 20 Debt Service $553,000 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants updated: August 5, 1999 6-9 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME A TWO DOUBLE MODULES 319 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 20 YRS 1 Construction Cost $3,814,280 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) $229,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Land Cost $215,000 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contingency $286,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $4,619,280 8 Financing Term 20 Years 9 Interest Rate 5.5 % 10 Term of Construction 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction $299 000 12 Interest Income 40% @ 5% ($109,000) 13 Legal & Accounting Fees @ 1.00% $54,000 14 Debt Service Reserve $455,000 15 Financing Fees (Points) @ 2.00% $109,000 16 COST OF ISSUANCE @ 0.25% $14,000 17 Total Financing Costs $822,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $4,619,280 19 Total Amount of Bonds $5,441,280 20 Debt Service 14K 000 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 6-10 updated: August 5, 1999 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME B 298 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 15 YRS W1 DSR 1 Construction Cost $3,711,890 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) $223,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Land Cost $415,000 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contingency $278,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $4,702,890 8 Financing Term 15 Years 9 Interest Rate 5.5 % 10 Term of Construction 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction $311,000 12 Interest Income 40% @ 5% ($113,000) 13 Legal & Accounting Fees @ 1.00% $56,000 14 Debt Service Reserve $563,000 15 Financing Fees (Points) @ 2.00% $113,000 16 COST OF ISSUANCE @ 0.25% $14,000 17 Total Financing Costs $944,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $4,702,890 19 Total Amount of Bonds $5,646,890 20 Debt Service lau 000 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 6-11 updated: August 5, 1999 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME B 298 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 20YRS W1 DSR 1 Construction Cost $3,711,890 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) $223,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Land Cost $415,000 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contingency $278,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $4,702,890 8 Financing Term 20 Years 9 Interest Rate 5.5 % 10 Term of Construction 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction $305,000 12 Interest Income 40% @ 5% ($111,000) 13 Legal & Accounting Fees @ 1.00% $55,000 14 Debt Service Reserve $464,000 15 Financing Fees (Points) @ 2.00% $111,000 16 COST OF ISSUANCE @ 0.25% $14,000 17 Total Financing Costs $838,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $4,702,890 19 Total Amount of Bonds $5,540,890 20 Debt Service 464 000 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants 6-12 updated: August 5, 1999 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME A OPTION 1 DOUBLE/SINGLE MODULE 133 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 15 YRS W/ DSR 1 Construction Cost $2,243,930 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) $135,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Land Cost $0 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contingency $160,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $2,613,930 8 Financing Term 9 Interest Rate 10 Term of Construction 15 Years 5.5 % 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction 12 Interest Income 13 Legal & Accounting Fees 14 Debt Service Reserve 15 Financing Fees (Points) 16 COST OF ISSUANCE 40% @ 5% @ 1.00% @ 2.00% @ 0.25% $173,000 ($63,000) $31,000 $313,000 $63,000 $8,000 17 Total Financing Costs $525,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $2,613,930 19 Total Amount of Bonds $3,138,930 20 Debt Service $313,000 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants updated: August 5, 1999 6-13 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME A DOUBLE/SINGLE MODULE 293 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 15 YRS W/ DSR 1 Construction Cost 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) 3 Geotech and Survey 4 Land Cost 5 Legal 6 Contingency $3,886,645 $233,000 $30,000 $0 $45,000 $292,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $4,486,645 8 Financing Term 9 Interest Rate 10 Term of Construction 15 Years 5.5 % 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction 12 Interest Income 13 Legal & Accounting Fees 14 Debt Service Reserve 15 Financing Fees (Points) 16 COST OF ISSUANCE 40% @ 5% @ 1.00% @ 2.00% @ 0.25% $296,000 ($108,000) $54,000 $537,000 $108,000 $13,000 17 Total Financing Costs 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed 19 Total Amount of Bonds $900,000 $4,486,645 $5,386,645 20 Debt Service $537,000 Rich and Associates, Inc - Parking Consultants updated August 5, 1999 6-14 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME A OPTION 1 DOUBLE/SINGLE MODULE 133 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 20 YRS W/ DSR 1 Construction Cost $2,243,930 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) $135,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Land Cost $0 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contingency $160,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $2,613,930 8 Financing Term 9 Interest Rate 10 Term of Construction 20 Years 5.5 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction 12 Interest Income 13 Legal & Accounting Fees 14 Debt Service Reserve 15 Financing Fees (Points) 16 COST OF ISSUANCE 40% @ 5% @ 1.00% @ 2.00% @ 0.25% $169,000 ($62,000) $31,000 $258,000 $62,000 $8,000 17 Total Financing Costs $466,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $2,613,930 19 Total Amount of Bonds $3,079,930 20 Debt Service $258,000 Rich and Associates, Ino. - Parking Consultants updated: August 5 1999 6-15 CITY OF JEFFERSON CITY PARKING STRUCTURE ON BLOCK 27 SCHEME A DOUBLE/SINGLE MODULE 293 SPACES PROJECT AND FINANCE COSTS AT 20YRS W/ DSR 1 Construction Cost $3,886,645 2 Professional Fees (Architectural/Engineering & Reimbursed) $233,000 3 Geotech and Survey $30,000 4 Land Cost $0 5 Legal $45,000 6 Contingency $292,000 7 Project Cost to be Financed $4,486,645 8 Financing Term 9 Interest Rate 10 Term of Construction 20 Years 5.5% 12 Months Financing Costs 11 Interest During Construction 12 Interest Income 13 Legal & Accounting Fees 14 Debt Service Reserve 15 Financing Fees (Points) 16 COST OF ISSUANCE 40% @ 5% @ 1.00% @ 2.00% @ 0.25% $291,000 ($106,000) $53,000 $442,000 $106,000 $13,000 17 Total Financing Costs $799,000 18 + Project Cost to Be Financed $4,486,645 19 Total Amount of Bonds $5,285,645 20 Debt Service $442,000 Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants updated August 5, 1999 6-16 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 City of Jefferson Table 5: ProForma for Block 27. Scheme A- 133 spaces updated. August 5, 1999 Existing Revenue Service 1998 1999 2000(1) 2001(2) 2002 2003(3) 2004 2005 2006(3) 2007 2008 2009(3) 2010 Total Revenue $882,680 $904,750 $954,200 $998.400 $1,008,384 $1,068,450 $1,115,330 $1,115,330 $1,166,900 $1,218,465 $1,218,465 $1,275,190 $1,331,910 Existing Expenses $467,810 $491,200 $515,760 $541,548 $568,625 $597,057 $626,910 $658,255 $691,168 $725,726 $762,012 $800,113 $840,119 Debt Service $373,000 $371,980 $378.060 $373.160 $372,810 $376,765 $374,765 $377,025 $378.275 $372.325 $375,825 $378,225 $374,575 Net Revenue $41,870 $41,570 $60,380 $83,692 $66,949 $94,628 $113,655 $80,050 $97,457 $120,414 $80,628 $96,852 $117,216 Debt Service Coverage 1.11 1.11 1.16 1.22 1.18 1.25 1.30 1.21 1.26 1.32 1.21 1.26 1.31 (at current rates: $0.25/hr., $50.00/moth) - 20 year amortization Revenue 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Monthly $51,410 $57,834 $69,678 $73,000 $73,000 $76,650 $80,300 $80,300 $84,315 $88,330 Transient $6.720 $20,000 $25,200 $26,400 $26,400 $27,720 $29,040 $29,040 $30,490 $31,945 Total Revenue $58,130 $77,834 $94,878 $99,400 $99,400 $104,370 $109,340 $109,340 $114,805 $120,275 Expenses $39,060 $41,013 $43,064 $45,217 $47,478 $49,852 $52,344 $54,962 $57,710 $60,595 Debt Service $258.000 $258,000 $258,000 $258.000 $258,000 $258,000 $258,000 $258-000 $258,000 $258,000 Net Revenue ($238,930) ($221.179) ($206,186) ($203,817) ($206,078) ($203,482) ($201,004) ($203,622) ($200,905) ($198,320) (1)' Parking fines for overtime parking increasing from $5,00 to $10,00. (2)' Parking fines for overtime parking increasing from $10.00 to $15.00, (3)' Rate increase at 10%; 5% the first and second year of a rate increase. Rich and Associates, Inc. - Parking Consultants Final Report, Aug. 1999 6-17 Arclitsare 27240 L a 25240 (chat Raab, Suite 2 Southfeld, Michigan 46034 357 (246) 357-5080 Fax (248) 351-3830 'TTY/(!!��■�7■T 70m44 Hal&& RIC 1 (813) 879-0987 1 Florida (407) 6 667-89911 An ASSOCIATES O-YV: p iifl9ORchAssa.mn CITY CAF" r LONER LEVEL TYP I GAL LEVEL SCALE: I" = 50-0" SCALE: I" = 50-0` ROOF LEVEL SCALE: I" = SCHEME A TOTAL CARS: 300 1EFFERS):�I .... .. ....... ... . .......... ....... ......... .. .......... Mc•s5O JR : ... .. . ........... .. ........ .... .... ..._........ ;(24$1.4u NO3E. �'. i Floes iw F1M9. ..7(,-•�� • :WFbv4 fluor.:' .r ..{n ssr-egg:::._...:: AND:PROPOSED $TRUM IA OUT . . . . . . ......... . .. . . .. . . . . . ........... .. .. . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... .. .... . . . . . . . . . ..... .... . . . . . . .. .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHEME A. kND ROOF LEVEL -J. EcIpeortg 25240 tabs Rood, Suite 2 Southfield, Michigan 48034 ('Z48) 353-5090 Fax (249) 393-19.10 Tampa. Flartda RI!"�T T (913) 9)9-0991 H uam)n9 Florida9 �.J11 (407)99 b97-9991 AND ASSOCIATES E-MM:por3 5OR9SSOoc.cwn r�i�iry n TYF I GAL LEVEL ROOF LEVEL 5GALE: I' = 50-0" 5-,ALE: I" = 5ol-O" 5GNEME G TOTAL GARS: 545 SCALE A Architact P4dkiv CanWris 28210 LohsV RWQ, Sit 2 Southfie4, Michigan 48034 Fm (244) 3s 3830 Tampa. (9,3)819-0997 Maitland, Florida (407) 8&7-8941 E-WL pondn90Rich4voc.com SITE PLANS AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE LAYOUT CITY )F . . . . . .... ... ............ .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . ... . . . . . .. ... ... . . . ..._... . JEFFERSON . . . . . ...... . ........ .......... ............. . MISSOURI SLOPE 1!P TO ABOVE SLOPE UP LO1AIER LEVEL SCALE: I' = 5o' -o" ROOF LEVEL SCALE: I" = 50'-O" SLOPE UP TO ABOVE SLOPE UP FR., BELOW SLOPE UP 1 I NTERMED I ATE LEVEL SCALE: I' = 50'-0" SCHEME B TOTAL CARS: 2.1e, SCALE: i:BLOCK til SITEMANSiMO ....AND PROPOSED STRUCTURE L YO.UT .... . ....... ..... ...... .............. . ... ... . ... .. . . .. .. ............. . ... . .............. ... .................. . .... . ............... . .................. ....... SCHEME _. LOWER, INTERME©I:ATE, AN ROOF' LEVEL PI ANS . . . . .. .... .. . ... ... . . . . . ...... .. .... . .. .. ..