City of Madison
Legislative File ID   12413
Type:   Ordinance    Status:   Items Referred
Enactment Date:      Enactment No.:  
Title:  
SUBSTITUTE - Amending Section 12.1335 of the Madison General Ordinances to strike alternate side parking regulations from November 15 through March 15 and subsection (2) "snow emergency zone"; amending Sec. 12.1335(4) of the Madison General Ordinances to create alternate side parking regulations during a declared snow emergency; repealing Secs. 12.1335(4)(c) and 12.1335(6) of the Madison General Ordinances and amending Sec. 1.08(3)(a) of the Madison General Ordinances to eliminate the bail deposit for Alternate Side Parking from November 15-March 15.
Controlling Body:   PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Introduced:   10/21/2008    Version:   2
Final Action:   4/21/2009    Contact:   sarnott@cityofmadison.com
Name:  
alternate side parking repeal
Extra Date 1:  
Requester:   PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION
Sponsors:  
Robbie Webber, Brian L. Solomon, Brenda K. Konkel, Eli Judge, Satya V. Rhodes-Conway, Michael E. Verveer, Marsha A. Rummel
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
10/21/2008Attorney's Office/Approval GroupThis Ordinance was Referred for Introduction
Notes: Transit and Parking Commission; Pedestrian/Bicycle/Motor Vehicle Commission
10/28/2008COMMON COUNCILThis Ordinance was Referred to the TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Transit and Parking Commission
10/28/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONThis Ordinance was Refer to the TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION
Notes:
10/29/2008PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Webber, seconded by Skidmore, to Refer to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION. The motion passed by voice vote/other. The PBMVC is the lead referral so referred this until the other referral(s) have made their recommendations. The PBMVC also requested that the Public Safety Review Board be added as a referral. DISCUSSION Webber advised that at last night’s Common Council meeting, the lead referral was changed from the TPC to the PBMVC, so the PBMVC would not be acting on it tonight. However, City staff who were present were welcome to speak on it at this time. Madison Fire Chief Amesqua wished to speak tonight. She remarked that this issue has come up in several different formats. Fire trucks need at least 20 feet of workable street space. During the winter, unplowed streets with parked cars become a real public safety issue. It is critical that the fire trucks respond to calls on time. Webber pointed out that this ordinance amendment would not change anything for downtown streets because they are already exempt from alternate side parking except during a declared snow emergency. Also, the alternate side parking ordinance for non-downtown streets is only in effect from 1:00 a.m. until 7:00 a.m. The ordinance amendment simply means that streets outside the central area would only have alternative side parking during a snow emergency. Chief Amesqua commented that perhaps many of the issues could have been resolved if City staff had been asked to review the proposal before it was introduced. Webber offered to meet with Chief Amesqua to discuss her concerns. Webber did not anticipate the ordinance would have a big impact on the Fire Department due to the limited hours covered by the alternate side parking ordinance. Ross indicated that City Traffic Engineer & Parking Manager Dryer had asked that this ordinance also be referred to the Public Safety Review Board. Members were unsure whether the PBMVC could add a referral. Skidmore, who is a member of the PSRB, felt that body should review it. [Wittke left at 6:10 p.m.] Lt. Jugovich of the Police Department commented that the amendment has staffing and overtime impacts and would affect enforcement operations. Motion by Webber/Skidmore to refer and request that the Public Safety Review Board be added as a referral. Motion carried unanimously. Pass
Notes:
11/6/2008TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSIONMichael Reichert, 6701 Fairhaven Road, 53719, appeared before the group, opposing the proposed resolution. As a retired taxi driver, who drove 7,000 miles each winter, he found the old system of no alternate side parking to be a disaster. He felt there had to be a system for people to get the word; without alternate side parking, there would be confusion because people wouldn’t hear about a snow emergency. When plows had to go around cars, large portions of a street were lost; and then when the unplowed snow froze, these lanes were still impassable 2-1/2 months later. He was also concerned about keeping streets open for fire trucks. When asked, he wasn’t sure if the new $60 fine would be enough incentive for people to get their cars off the street in a snow emergency. Al Schumacher, Streets Superintendent, appeared before the Commission to speak against the proposed ordinance change, because of the negative fiscal and safety impacts. Prior to the current system of alternate-side parking and snow emergency zones, there was a citywide alternate-side parking ordinance. But at that time, there were no Parking Enforcement Officers (PEOs), just beat police officers, for whom the issue was of low priority. As a result, when a snow emergency was declared, people were not accustomed to moving and streets everywhere got very narrow. Then the City established the system of a snow emergency zone downtown, with $10 fines in alternate-side parking areas and $20 fines in the snow emergency zones. Seven years ago, the fines went to $20 and $30 respectively, and hourly PEO’s were hired to ticket in the alternate-side parking areas during non-snow emergencies to condition parkers in those areas, and to converge on the downtown area during snow emergencies. The conditioned response in the outside areas worked very well – people moved their cars. But even with a $30 ticket, parkers in the snow emergency zone didn’t respond well. There were more than 800 tickets issued in two nights of one snow emergency last winter, during which eight snow emergencies were declared, and Streets plowed 14 times. Streets continued to have problems, and even though they had posted and towed, they had to bring extra towing vehicles and PEO’s on overtime in to help. To be efficient at plowing, Schumacher said that Streets needed to have cars off the streets. It was so much cheaper to go down a street with no cars on it and plow it back once, which cost less than $20 per face block. When tow trucks and PEO’s were needed to remove cars, then the cost went to $200 per face block. When they didn’t have compliance and had to post for 48 hours, then bring in PEO’s and tow trucks, and remove snow that had become concrete, the cost went up to $2,000 per face block. Schumacher went on to talk about the extra cost and time it could take if people in alternate-side areas weren’t conditioned to comply when snow emergencies occurred. With delays in clearing cars off these streets, it could become necessary to hire extra contractors and/or call in extra city crews in order to clear the entire city in a timely way – both of which would cost the City much more money. Otherwise, with existing personnel and equipment, it could take three nights to clear the city, which residents would find unacceptable. Added nights of plowing would delay the clearing of pedestrian areas – bus stops, crosswalks, and vision hazards. It would also be difficult to maintain appropriate PEO staffing levels: Who would want to work for just 4-5 snow emergencies? Schumacher said there would be additional public education costs. Streets currently leafleted and conducted an info campaign in the existing snow emergency zone. Under the proposal, they would now have to notify the entire city – 140,000 households – at a cost of $27K/year. Also, current listserv technology was not quite ready to handle massive e-mailings in a timely way. Schumacher also cited the loss of $400-500K revenue to the City, from the 20-25,000 citations issued every year in the alternate-side parking areas. In tough budget times, could we afford to lose this revenue? Also, Parking could stand to lose revenue from its ramps, when snow emergencies went into a third night. City Engineer Larry Nelson also expressed concerns about the proposal, especially having just come off of a record-breaking winter that pushed resources to the limit. The current system recognized that there was insufficient off-street parking for people downtown, which was why alternate-side parking was not required there. As a result, plows had to go back to these streets multiple times to get them completely cleared. This was accomplished in a fairly timely way because plows didn’t have to revisit the outer areas with alternate-side parking. Nelson said the City didn’t have enough resources to do multiple plowings throughout the city, if the entire city were to be identified as a snow emergency zone. Much of current resources were allocated to clear bike lanes (using smaller vehicles), which might need to be pulled off to do streets. There was increasing demand to clear sidewalks on city parcels, as well as to maintain accessibility for people with disabilities. These areas were done after streets were plowed, and this process would be delayed. Last winter, Engineering was involved in clearing bus stops, working overtime for weeks, in between clearing streets. Nelson felt that should the proposal be adopted, City resources would be diluted, seriously impacting the public even in winters less severe than last. Later, Nelson said that he was not confident that Streets/Engineering could provide snow/ice services to the city under the proposed regulations. He felt that it would be very hard to educate citizens and achieve enough compliance to be able to do their job in a timely way throughout the winter. Fire Chief Debra Amesqua addressed the proposal from a public safety perspective, noting that the space needed for emergency services was 20 useable feet, in order to be able to work in mitigated situations. This was assuming that Fire could get to the call. With record amounts of snow over the past few years and with more predicted, Fire had been working on winter contingency plans with Streets. In fact, there had been emergency calls when Fire had asked Streets to escort them to a call because Fire could not get to the call; which pulled resources away from the Streets’ regular operations. Amesqua said the proposal wouldn’t change the situation in the inner city, which was not working. On the other hand, the situation in the outlying areas of the city was working quite well, and to make changes there seemed counterproductive. Amesqua felt that people should talk to the department heads about what they were struggling with, to try to find ways to meet everyone’s needs. From a safety perspective, she felt the proposed changes were going in the wrong direction. Amesqua felt that any efforts to change the ordinances should focus on the inner city where there wasn’t enough space for the cars that demanded parking on the streets. Ray Harmon, from the Mayor’s Office addressed the Commission. Noting the good information from the City managers regarding the ways the proposal could negatively impact each of their departments, he asked members to consider how the changes would impact City operations and the City budget in a tough budget season. The proposal would cause City costs to increase and City revenue to decrease, a bad combination. With that in mind, he urged members not to approve the proposal. During subsequent discussion, Commission members pointed out the following: · Under the proposal, cars would still be required to park on alternate sides when Streets needed to plow, as they do now; and because this remained the same, it was hard to see why new costs or problems would result, as staff argued. · The connection made between lack of compliance in the downtown snow emergency zone and greater levels of compliance in the alternate-side areas was faulty, since a big factor affecting compliance in either area was having a parking space to move to. · People responded poorly to the argument that there would be lost revenue from fewer fines; we shouldn’t be implying that we are going to have rules that don’t make sense in order to collect fines from the public. · There was an inconsistency in arguing that alternate-side parking was working so well now, while at the same time arguing that so much revenue would be lost from alternate-side fines if the rules were to be changed. · Perhaps two different periods/levels of response could be created: snow emergency and alternate-side parking effect, whereby outlying areas might have to park on alternate sides for a longer period of time in order to provide enough time to get snow cleared. · While the strategy to condition parkers was understandable, there must some middle ground that could be found, to stop requiring parkers move their cars, esp. when there was little or no snow on the ground. · Perhaps the higher fines for snow emergencies will generate better compliance; and will help gauge what would happen if the city were to move away from alternate-side parking. · If fines were high enough, people would learn fast. · The goal of the increased fines was not to generate more revenue, but rather to increase conditioned response (vs. using alternate-side parking all winter long to accomplish this). · Considering the statistics from last winter (6,400 cars cited in the snow emergency zone, very few cited in alternate-side areas during snow emergencies, 20,000-25,000 cars cited for alternate-side parking violations throughout the winter outside of snow emergencies), virtually all of the alternate-side tickets have nothing to do with the goal of the ordinance except to create a conditioned response. · With higher fines and better communication systems, there would be an opportunity to learn a lot this coming winter. · It was possible that higher compliance levels in outlying areas vs. those in the central city had to do with different behaviors and options: downtown residents drive less frequently and have fewer choices for parking their cars off-street. · Perhaps alternate-side parking could be required from the first time snow fell in the street until the time it stopped. City staff made the following comments: · Requiring alternate-side parking throughout the winter produced a conditioned response in people. · If people were not conditioned and then missed a snow emergency declaration, they wouldn’t know to move their cars. · Even with 13 inches of snow in one day last winter, 800 cars in the central city did not move. · Those cars in the near east and near west side neighborhoods without good off-street options were more problematic than those in outlying areas. · It wasn’t yet certain how increased fines would motivate people to move their cars during snow emergencies. · Perhaps a good compromise would be to have lower fines in outlying alternate-side parking areas during non-snow emergencies. · Perhaps people in outlying areas could be conditioned to know that alternate side parking was required when there was snow on the ground (rather than during a declared snow emergency); then these areas would be cleared enough to get through, so that when a snow emergency occurred, equipment/resources could be used to clear the central city. · Currently, hourly PEO’s were used to enforce alternate-side parking; it wasn’t clear from the fiscal note whether there would be PEO’s available for enforcement even during a snow emergency. · With 58 salt/sand operations last winter, it wasn’t strictly snow removal that necessitated alternate-side parking, esp. on 26-foot wide streets. · Higher fines may or may not work, esp. in the central city; on heavy snow days this past winter, it wouldn’t have mattered how much the fines were, because folks couldn’t move their cars. Maybe the best way to get compliance would be to pick up the car and move it. · It would be helpful to see how the higher fines worked out this coming winter, but it might take 2-3 years to see what impact the fines have. · Fines didn’t allow (directly help) the agencies to take care of the streets. · With a narrow window, there wasn’t enough time to plow; the public wouldn’t stand for a 3-day response in clearing the streets. · During non-snow emergencies, PEO’s worked in alternate-side parking areas; during snow emergencies, PEO’s worked entirely in the snow emergency zone, which was why there were few citations issued in alternate-side areas during the snow emergencies. · Realizing there were fewer off-street options for downtown residents, it was hoped that longer hours for free parking in ramps and opening up Parks parking lots would help with compliance. · There might be compromises that could be discussed. Schumacher responded to member questions about the new communication systems: · There was a new “winter” portal set up on the City website. · On this site, people could sign up for automatic text messaging and listserv (email), and see official communications re: weather forecasts and goals. · In the corner of every city web page, there would have a flashing message the status of snow emergencies. · Media outlets would be notified of any snow emergency prior to 9 PM on the night a snow emergency was declared. In response to other questions, Schumacher said that a snow emergency declaration was in effect for 48 hours, but the Street Superintendent had the authority to extend that to additional nights if necessary. He said that using the criteria of snow on the street, as the basis for triggering alternate-side parking, would present a problem for Parking Enforcement: When do they call in their PEO’s? Also, snow didn’t always fall across the entire city all at once; sometimes, lots of snow fell in some areas of the city while there was no snow in other areas. Webber talked about her reasons for proposing the new snow emergency rules. Her constituents frequently asked her why they were required to move their cars every night between November and March or get a ticket, even when there was no snow on the ground, often for weeks at a time. She saw no reason for them to move their cars when there was no snow on the ground, and no plows or salt trucks were out. In her neighborhood, an older part of the city, there were a limited number of parking spots, and people had trouble finding parking spaces. Taking away 50% of the parking spots every night put a burden on the neighborhood. Also, many residents there didn’t use their cars every day, and often, walked, bused or biked. She thought it incredibly wasteful, in terms of gas, pollution and time, for them to have to start their cars and drive around the block every night, looking for a different spot to park. She felt that the City should require people to move their cars when it needed them to do so; but, it shouldn’t make them move their cars when it wasn’t needed. Webber said she was willing to extend the snow emergency time to all day if necessary; to tow the cars; to establish snow emergency routes, where people couldn’t park at all during a snow emergency, so that those streets could get plowed first; to raise the fines as high as necessary. But she didn’t want to make people move their cars when there was no reason. She noted that people in alternate-side parking areas were not getting ticketed during snow emergencies: The City was ticketing people when they didn’t need to move their cars, but not ticketing them when they did need to move their cars. Plus, four of the last five winters were mild. Webber also stated that she was philosophically opposed to ticketing people just because the City needed the money. On the other hand, she had supported budgeting money for an auto-chalking system, because her neighborhood had a 2-hour parking restriction for people who didn’t have a residential parking permit, which wasn’t getting enforced. She put in a budget amendment in order to get better enforcement of that regulation, which people actually wanted enforced to free up parking spots, and which would also improve revenue. Webber explained that she made the effective date June 1, 2009, so there would be lots of time to prepare and discuss the idea. She agreed to the higher fines during snow emergencies because she knew she would be introducing this proposal. She felt it was a trade-off: Sock folks when it did snow and they needed to move their cars; and give them a break when there was no good reason for them to move their cars every night. She was willing to introduce any kind of ordinance to provide more incentive for people to move their cars. She felt that $60 was a pretty good incentive, but realized that some people wouldn’t move their cars no matter what. She described a situation in her block, where a car was parked in a spot for two solid weeks and was never ticketed. She finally called and had the car towed because there was no enforcement in her neighborhood when it did snow. She concluded by saying that current rules did not seem to be working from the citizens’ point of view. Webber moved to refer the item, so that staff could work on it some more and because other committees would be working on it as well. Hinz seconded the motion. Webber moved to suspend the rules to allow Hoag to speak about the proposal. Hoag said he was very supportive when he heard discussion about the proposal. As Associate Director of the Engine Research Center at the UW, his field of expertise was emission control. For all automobiles with a catalyst in the exhaust (i.e., virtually all cars made since the 1970’s), the majority of emissions occurred only on warm-up, when a car is started. This was much more the case with newer cars. Toyota did a study recently on the street of Tokyo that demonstrated that once a car was fully warmed up, the stuff coming out of the exhaust was cleaner than the background air. New cars were very clean once the catalyst was warmed up, and (tellingly) automakers were focusing on rapid warm-up to help meet emission standards. Hoag went on to say that during the first few minutes of operation was when we got almost all of the carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen. He had heard from the EPA and others that Madison was very close to being a non-attainment zone from an air quality standpoint. As soon as a city was designated a non-attainment zone, the fiscal impacts on everybody were really high, because of emissions testing that would have to be done on every car every year, because there would have to be re-formulated gasoline in every pump, and other ramifications. The biggest reason for finding an alternative to alternate-side parking was that every day we were forcing thousands of cars to start up for the sole purpose of moving them to the other side of the street. The negative consequences of the pollution put into the air and the possibility of becoming a non-attainment zone were a big part of rationale behind the proposal. Hoag said that when weighing these consequences against the need to condition people, he would prefer to use high fines and other strategies to help condition people, rather than requiring alternate-side parking on a daily basis. As a progressive city concerned about air quality, this was a huge issue. Harmon thanked Hoag and said that City staff was sensitive to the information provided; and said that he would like more information and to work with Webber to figure out a compromise. While in support of the proposal, White wondered if rather than having a strict November 15th start date for alternate-side parking, there could be an announcement of a start date when it was actually needed. Sanborn acknowledged staff’s real concerns about losing the effect of conditioning resulting in more cars on both sides of the street when snow emergencies occurred, under the new rules. However, he wondered how much higher fines would offset this. At lower fine levels, some people preferred to pay the fine rather than try to find a spot to move their cars. But he expected that there would be a tipping point, at which people would rather move their cars than pay a (higher) fine. Sanborn was inclined to support the proposal, but would consider referring it beyond the winter, in order to see how the increased fines affect the snow emergency zone. If we were to see a considerable increase in compliance, that would bode well for what would happen if this change were implemented for the following winter. Webber had no problem with this. Streit said he heard that for City staff, there was a workforce issue involved here. During snow emergencies, a certain number of people normally working on alternate-side parking had to be immediately deployable to the central city. In order to make things really work in the central city during snow emergency, perhaps we needed to think about how to create an effective workforce for those occasions (like that used for games at Camp Randall); vs. keeping a workforce busy over 4 months of the year in order to have them readily available in the emergencies. He wanted this issue – a critical part of staff concerns – to be studied. The question was called, and the motion to refer passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
1/6/2009COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Refer to the BOARD OF ESTIMATES. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Public Safety Review Board
1/6/2009COMMON COUNCILThis Ordinance was Refer to the PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW BOARD
Notes:
2/10/2009PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEAlder Webber is a sponsor of eliminating alternate side street parking to just declare snow emergencies. She indicated that when she supported raising the fines for the snow emergency; doubling the fines from $30 to $60 it was then that she would then introduce legislation to eliminate alternate side street parking as she feels there is no reason that people should have to move their vehicle, or receive a ticket when there is no snow. She further stated that she would be in support to raise the snow emergency fines even higher to not have alternate side parking. She felt that it is not good public policy, or environmental policy. Captain Bach and Stefanie Niesen, the Parking Enforcement Supervisor, were in attendance to speak on behalf of the Madison Police Department. Bach indicated that there are a number of primary concerns or impacts of abolishing alternate side parking in which he spoke about. First and foremost is public safety. The alternate side parking ordinance was enacted so the streets dept. could routinely plow the streets side to side which prevents them from narrowing from the buildup of previous snowfalls. The narrowing of the streets would make it difficult for emergency vehicle apparatus to navigate safely through. The second impact would be staffing and service. Hourly parking officers are employed to enforce the alternate side ord. would be eliminated. Thus when a snow emergency was declared the permanent parking enforcement employees would be responsible for 24 hour coverage during the declared snow emergency. There is insufficient staff to provide the needed coverage and staff would be supplemented with overtime assignments. Niesen added that there would then be a need to expand the hours of the snow emergency which would then take away from parking for commuters that come downtown, would most likely see less enforcement in the downtown areas, and there would then be towing during the day instead of the night. Bach mentioned that Streets use Post n Tow. This is when they post notices on a block indicating that on a specific date that they are going to tow. This would then need to be expanded City wide, as it is now just Central, which is resource intense for both MPD and Streets. Assistant Fire Chief Keiken agreed with Captain Bach on the impacts of eliminating this ordinance. Chief Keiken shared Capt. Bach’s primary concern about the impact of the narrowing of the streets. He said the Fire Department currently struggles during the winter getting fire apparatus down some streets, due to snow accumulating from many snowfalls that has not been cleared curb to curb. He further said that the idea of the post n tow may sound reasonable but it doesn’t help during a snowfall when the Fire Department has an emergency call and the streets have yet to be cleared. Chief Keiken indicated that at least with the alternate side parking, if enforced, more often than not there is adequate space to get fire apparatus through. Terry Moen mentioned that George Dreckman from City Streets didn’t realize that this item was on the agenda until late in the day in which streets could not attend this meeting, but they would have wanted a vote delayed until they could comment on this agenda item. Professor Scott indicated that there must be other Communities the size of Madison that has different approaches of clearing streets from snow. It was mentioned that what it comes down to is a public safety issue and a public policy issue. The group agreed that they would like to see additional data and information before making a decision on this agenda item. Alder Skidmore made a motion to re-refer this agenda item to the next meeting and Alder Judge seconded this motion.
Notes:
2/16/2009BOARD OF ESTIMATESA motion was made by Verveer, seconded by Clear, to Refer to the BOARD OF ESTIMATES for about 30 days. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
3/10/2009PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW COMMITTEEGeorge Dreckman and Chris Kelly from City Streets attended this meeting to give an overview on why they would like to see the alternate side street parking remain in effect. Kelly indicated that the main concern from Streets is public safety and that their number one concern is to be able to have streets plowed in order to get police, fire, and streets equipment through a street. If there is not alternate side parking in place, equipment cannot get through as the streets get narrow. Dreckman mentioned that if there was only parking restrictions in place when there is a snow emergency in those situations it would take 72 hours to complete a plowing. As an example, he mentioned St. Paul, Minnesota. In those situations it takes them 72 hours to complete a plowing. The way their system works is the first day they clear the main thoroughfares when there is not parking on those streets, the second day either east/south or north/west then get plowed when there is no parking on those streets while the other streets sit until those are plowed. He said that the City of Madison opens every street within 12 hours of the start of a plowing and is completed with one side completely cleared, and the second night they plow on the alternate side when cars have moved. Dreckman said that there would be an extra day added at least to what they do now without alternate side parking and just having a declared snow emergencies before parking restrictions took effect. From a public expectations standpoint and a public safety standpoint it would be become an issue. He said that last year they plowed 14 times but declared only 8 snow emergencies because alternate side parking allowed Streets to get into most of the City to get the streets cleared. The final item that Dreckman mentioned is air emissions and the particulates that come from the diesel trucks that plow snow would be in the air because they would need to spend more time plowing. Professor Scott mentioned the question that was asked during the last PSRB meeting on what other Cities do on snow removal. Dreckman provided a listing to the group of examples on how other Cities operate to remove snow. Professor Scott and Alder Judge questioned if there are other options out there that the City could put in place as another route in which we could work towards when the weather is nice? Captain Bach indicated that if there were a model where there was a type of discretion involved or administrative decision to not enforce alternate side on certain days because of the weather, there would need to be a policy decision on how that would work and what could the 11-15 hourly parking enforcement employee's that are hired as seasonal employees do with parking enforcement. There was a motion made to move to deny a change in alternate side street parking. All ayes means a vote to deny.Pass
(7:0)
Notes: There was a motion made to move to deny a change in alternate side street parking. The motion passed by the following vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Noes.
3/23/2009BOARD OF ESTIMATESA motion was made by Bruer, seconded by Clear, to Return to Lead with the Recommendation to Place on File to the PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION. The motion passed by the following vote:Pass
(3:2)
Notes:
3/24/2009PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE/MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONA motion was made by Webber, seconded by Conroy, to RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO ADOPT - REPORT OF OFFICER. The motion FAILED by the following vote:Fail
(3:3)
Notes: The motion to Adopt FAILED by the following vote: 3 Ayes, 3 Noes, 1 Abstention
4/14/2009TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSIONWebber said City staff is opposed to this. She still personally feels requiring alternate side parking when there is no snow or threat of snow and moving cars every day for no reason is a silly idea and not environmentally or customer service friendly. Still, she felt there was little chance of it passing, so she was not going to push it forward. This came up partly because TPC said they’d like to see some relief when fines were doubled for not moving a car during a snow emergency. Alders and commission members said they wanted relief for when there isn’t snow. Poulson moved to recommend placing this on file; seconded by Hinz. The group discussed expanding the time when the 48 hour parking was allowed or expanding the area of the city where cars don’t have to be moved. Many people said that one area of the City is exempted because of the limited parking there, but others areas could benefit from this as well. There are costs to the City for plowing if people don’t move their cars when it snows. However, there are also environmental costs to drive around for five minutes every day to move your car or people who decide to drive every day because they will have to move their car any way. That produces costs in idling, traffic congestion, etc. There was general support for the idea, but a feeling that this needed to be brought up in a different version. The motion to place on file passed. Pass
(6:2)
Notes:
4/21/2009COMMON COUNCILA motion was made by Ald. Bruer, seconded by Ald. Verveer, to Place On File. The motion passed by voice vote/other.Pass
Notes:
Approvals
ApproverDateApproval Status
Daniel Bohrod10/23/2008Approved
Michael May10/23/2008Approved
Daniel Bohrod1/8/2009Review Requested
Approver Note: extend
Michael May12/18/2008Approved

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.