To the editor:
The proposed Parking Authority financial plan was presented in December as a “First Report”, returning to Council for debate on Jan. 22. The plan makes the point that parking revenues are used to pay for the operating and capital costs required to maintain the parking infrastructure. It further states that revenues are not sufficient to meet its debt servicing obligations relating to parking infrastructure capital upgrades. That debt sits at a total of over $3 Million.
These past and future capital upgrades, relate mostly to the parkades.
Victoriaville Parkade capital repairs outlined in the statements are listed at over $1 million annually for the next 10 years, totalling $14.5 million to 2033, with significant financial requirements beyond 2033.
So, it appears clear that it is the Parkades that present the biggest financial challenge going forward.
The report states the goal is to “improve cost recovery and align with market rates in comparable cities”.
So why is it, that after years of undercharging at the parkades, the parkade rates will continue to be less than comparable rates in other cities, and insufficient to generate the revenue necessary to cover the millions in anticipate capital work?
The 2023 parkade monthly pass costs $61.88 (works out to $3/day if using for 20 days monthly). Proposed rates for 2024 are $90 monthly, ($4.50 per day if used 20 days, monthly). The Corporate Report says in other comparable cities, the average rate was $2/hr. and $15/day. Our proposed day use rate is $1.25 per hour and a maximum of $5 per day. Comparable monthly rates are $140, our proposed rate, $90. Yet, the proposal is for visitors using Marina Park to pay $3 for just one hour in our park.
The report and the online survey talk about paid parking in prime locations to help “manage the demand” for parking. Parking at Marina Park is not normally a situation “needing to be managed” other than for special events, as well as hotel guests using Market Square instead of the hotel's own parking, south of Pearl Street. Perhaps this is a situation the new parking fees hope to mitigate.
The report includes “Links to the CTB Strategic Plan” which references “logical and evidence-based decision-making”. Knowing that it is the necessary past and future capital repairs to the Parkades, along with rates inadequate to properly fund those repairs that appear to be the main driver of the financial woes of the Parking Authority, how logical is it to charge park users an exorbitant fee to cover the parkade repairs?
The report also refers to a period of public consultation, but a report delivered as a First Report, 2 weeks before Christmas, with the closing date for the public survey being the first day children return to school, was hardly an appropriate period of consultation. Citizens also had to sign up online and create an account, which in itself is an ongoing impediment to public comment.
The report also makes mention of a coming “No Free Parking Policy” which would presumably study what other facilities could be considered for paid parking. Those costs are presently covered, as part of our taxes. We know, “parking is not free”. It will be interesting to see what other city facilities are deemed as in need of covering their parking expenses.
To expect Marina Park visitors to subsidize the ongoing capital costs of the Parkades is unfair to park users, and does not conform to the City's stated intent to use evidence-based decision making. Marina Park is a city park, and should not charge an exorbitant parking fee. It is Parkade rates that need to increase further, in order to fund millions in upcoming capital repairs.
