Posts Tagged ‘City council’

History has a way of repeating itself, and that certainly seems to be the case with the parking privatization dispute going on in Cincinnati. The city has been in negotiations with Xerox and Denison Parking to lease out all of the city’s parking meters and parking garages (the meters being leased to Xerox, the garages to Denison Parking). Specifically, the city council voted back in March to lease the city’s parking assets to the Cincinnati Port Authority, which in turn would be turning over operations to Xerox and Denison parking; the lease would be for 30 years, though the Port Authority has been unclear on how long they intended to allow Xerox and Denison to manage the properties. In exchange, the city would receive $92 million upfront for the sale, as well as $3 million annually which would gradually increase over time. Of course, none of this is certain, as much of the deal still remains vague or is yet to be determined, and there have been conflicting statements about the exact nature of the deal throughout the negotiation process.

Local residents are less than thrilled to say the least, especially many members of the local business community. One area of particular contention is whether Xerox would be allowed to extend meter hours from 6 pm to 9 pm; local business owners worry this would impact their businesses and that they would have far fewer avenues to address this going through Xerox instead of the city. Another concern is that Xerox would be incentivized to step up enforcement, which in turn could drive away customers. While there have been assurances that Xerox wouldn’t see any extra money from writing extra tickets, the reason for that is rather flimsy; extra revenue from enforcement would go into a an infrastructure fund for Port Authority and parking improvements, but there haven’t been any specifics into how this fund would be sequestered off and safe from being raided. Finally, how much parking rates might rise under Xerox management is unclear, since as yet there haven’t been any rate controls mentioned as part of the deal. If rates got too onerous, residents would have far less options for recourse with Xerox than they would with the city.

Of course the biggest indicator of there being something fishy with this deal is how city officials have tried to ram this deal through. First, there was the move by the city to use a parliamentary trick to shield this deal from a public referendum like many residents wanted. A lawsuit has been brought against the city over this, and while the city’s case was upheld by an appellate court, the case has now moved to the Ohio Supreme Court. This is of particular concern since the entire lease is going to be funded by public bonds issued by the Port Authority. As I’ve discussed before, Port Authorities frequently issue bonds, sometimes massive bonds, with no input or control from the public, and this can quickly lead to massive debt or even bankruptcy for a city without them even knowing about it until it happens. As usual, the city is interested in using the funds from the lease of their parking assets to pay for other city projects and to shore up holes in the city budget, while the Port Authority is trying to claim about a third of the $92 million upfront payment for itself (while ultimately the city and its residents are on the hook for the bonds issued to generate that money). It also recently came out that the original consulting firm that was hired to assess the deal, Walker Parking Consultants, had issued a memo critical of the deal, saying that Xerox would be making too much profit off of this deal and the revenue projections were too high (particularly concerning considering that bonds were being issued based on these revenue projections); but this memo was kept secret from the city council by city management, not coming out until after the city council had voted in favor of the deal. Right around the time this memo was issued, the Port Authority insisted that Walker no longer be used in the deal because of a potential “conflict of interest” created by Walker working for both the city and the Port Authority. After some of the information that has come out since the vote, a number of city council members have said they would change their vote and kill the deal, but city management says that the city council no longer has the ability to vote on or kill the deal. So basically, the city council voted on the deal before it was done being written, and now they’re being told they can’t vote on the actual deal that would take place.

So essentially, Cincinnati is looking at a deal being ramrodded through by the Port Authority and city management, one to generate short term profits and to deal with short term problems at the cost of real, long term solutions to the budget problems the city and Parking Authority are facing, with an all but guaranteed chance of major issues stemming from this deal down the line, and all of this being funded by public debt while those behind the deal try to exclude the public from having any input, control or even basic knowledge about it. It stinks to high heaven, and while leasing Cincinnati’s parking assets is not an inherently bad idea on paper, doing it this way certainly is. The deal should be killed and a new one started, this time with input from the public and transparency throughout the whole process. If all of that wasn’t damning enough, these numbers sum it up pretty well: in today’s dollars, the city’s parking assets over the next 30 years would be worth approximately $475 million, and they’re looking at making a total of $197.4 million off of this deal. With the city and the Port Authority fighting tooth and nail to keep citizens from having any say in this, I don’t know how much hope Cincinnati residents have, but with 2014 around the corner it might be a bad idea to start reminding the elected officials of Cincinnati who they have to rely on to vote them back into their jobs, and it sure as hell isn’t Xerox and the Port Authority. So to anyone in Cincinnati, good luck, it looks like you’re going to need it.

It all started with a $20 parking ticket given to Toledo lawyer Jeffrey Zilba while he was parked in front of the Ottawa County courthouse in Port Clinton, OH in the summer of 2011. Since the legality of his parking was ambiguous (and being a professional arguer for a living), Mr. Zilba wanted to challenge the ticket, as many of us have unfortunately been forced to do at one point or another. That was when he realized that the ticket had no phone number and no way of challenging it given on the ticket. Failure to pay the $20 ticket would result in a misdemeanor, meaning that the only option for someone receiving one was to either pay the fine and admit guilt or become guilty of a crime. Not only was this unacceptable to Mr. Zilbas, but he saw it as a violation of his right to due process as guaranteed under both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. So Mr. Zilbas paid the ticket to avoid the misdemeanor and decided to start a suit against the city.

And that’s when things started to spin out of control. The suit dragged on for more than a year and a half, finally ending with a ruling in favor of Mr. Zilbas. The city was ordered to decriminalize their parking tickets and provide a way to challenge them, as well as paying damages to Mr. Zilbas. Those damages? $45,000 worth of lawyers fees! The money to pay the settlement was approved by the Port Clinton city council, which has also started the process of changing their ticketing ordnances. The money to pay for this case will unfortunately come from the city’s general fund, which will cause the delay or abandonment of some of the projects slated for the city this year.

So where does the blame lie? Well, despite what seems like some pretty high lawyer fees and what must be heaping helpings of determination or stubbornness, Mr. Zilbas is not the one at fault; his rights were infringed on, and he had a legitimate case. The blame and responsibility really lies with the city. They enacted the unconstitutional ticket policy in the first place, and also failed to resolve this case out of court when it would have been much cheaper for taxpayers and saved a lot of time as well. When it gets down to it, it was, as always, the combination of a lack of oversight and attention to the city’s parking program and not wanting to give up some of the cash cow that is parking fees, even if those fees are being levied unfairly and without a way to challenge them. It’s a small tyranny, but it’s still a tyranny when meter maids are made into judge and jury for Port Clinton citizens.

Airport Parking Fees Could Rise After State Takeover

by ISRAEL BALDERAS Bio    | Email   | Follow: @israel_balderas       by PHOTOJOURNALIST TIM MULLICAN

Story Created:            Mar 18, 2013 at 11:04 PM EDT

Story Updated:        Mar 19, 2013 at 12:33 AM EDT

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Parking rates at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport are quite lower than other similar size airports. Those fees, in turn, help to partly fund operations.

But under a profit-sharing arrangement with U.S. Air, millions of dollars also flow to the airport’s largest tenant.

To get higher revenues, fees could go up. But for that to happen, city council oversight would also have to be removed.

“Charlotte used to be great to fly out of,” said Mooresville resident Chuck Fogle. “With this, it’s really made business travel difficult.”

Fogle says construction plans for a new hourly parking deck are lacking. Most travelers have to use the long term area, which can be a hassle on a rainy day.

“You have to walk a long distance from your car to the bus stop,” said Fogle.

For those returning back to their cars after a flight, there’s confusion about which bus to take.

“This is the fourth bus already, and its not ours yet,” said Greenville, S.C. resident Dave Overbaugh. “We’ve never seen a daily north before.”

But the parking headaches are worth it, as long as it’s cheap to park and fly, and fares don’t go up.

“I hope not,” said Overbaugh with a laugh. “It’s a whole lot cheaper to fly out.”

Currently, U.S. Air receives almost $10.5 million from the airport budget in “non airline terminal revenue.” That is money travelers spend, such as buying coffee or parking their cars.

A spokesperson for U.S. Air says they supported raising parking rates, along with other airlines. But, U.S. Air adds, “we did not initiate, drive or influence the actual rates.”

Keep in mind, the airline accounts for 90% of the airport’s 700 daily flights.

Right now, Charlotte City Council is fighting the Republican controlled General Assembly over a proposed takeover of the city’s airport.

By turning it over to a regional authority, Charlotte would have its management oversight taken away by state legislators.

“There’s clearly an issue of political accountability,” said Mayor Anthony Foxx.

Any increase in concession costs and parking fees ultimately has to go through the city. But with a regional authority, citizens would have no one to address their concerns.

FOX Charlotte sources say airport manager Jerry Orr has researched parking rates in other markets. To raise them, Orr would have to appear before city council and make such request.

If that were to happen, council members would be the first ones getting the phone calls.

State legislators who propose a regional authority say the move would take away any politics from airport decisions.

“Today citizens can call and complain about various things that have to do with the airport,” said Foxx, “and we have to manage that.”

Republican State Senator Bob Rucho wrote the legislation that turns Charlotte-Douglas from a city managed airport to a regional authority.

Section 5 of the bill states future board members will receive free parking.