Left In Lowell

The Parking Budget

by Mimi at 4:53 pm.

I am disregarding the advice I often give to others which is “do not pay attention to the paper’s editorial rants.” Yesterday’s editorial on “parking” was just too much for me to swallow. With three articles on the subject (link here, here and here) , you knew an editorial was coming.

And of course, whoever wrote this editorial completely dismissed the detailed articles written by City Hall reporter Jenn Myers; one on the plans for FY 2010 budget and the other on the City’s plan for layoffs. I guess those facts were going to get in the way.

I found it so ironic that the Sun was lecturing City Hall on finances. If they are so clever, and if they know so much about controlling expenses while providing a quality product, they should share that knowledge with their parent company.

This morning I heard CM Bernie Lynch during his regular appearance on WCAP and he reiterated that unlike the private sector, municipal governments have to provide a basic service: police, fire, public works, and schools. Yes, a lot of the City budget goes towards salaries and benefits but to blame the current administration for this situation is “buffoonery.”

Let’s try to deal with facts. The problem with the “parking” budget is the Early/Middlesex Street/Hamilton Canal garage.

Let’s go back to the Spring of 2006 when most of us did not even know who Bernie Lynch was and the City Council and the previous administration were discussing the “JAM Plan garage.” As some of us recall, when the bids finally came in the cost was $21M, $5 Million more than originally planned.

That is when our problems began. As I wrote back in May 2006, the vote was 6-3 in favor of increasing the cost of the garage. (Seven (7) of those CC members are still on the Council today. It was obvious then and it is obvious now, that the cost will be absorbed by the tax payers and the residents and visitors who utilize the garage.

By the way, you can catch a re-run of any of those City Council meetings on LTC’s streaming video page. I am going to watch it again, just so I can remember what was said then and compare it to what will be said when this subject comes up in front of the City Council.

As for the free parking space for City employees, I do think it is worth taking a look at it. Certainly the teachers and staff at LHS should get free parking. Most employers do not require their employees to pay for parking. Whey should someone who works at the DPW Yard or works for the Cemetery get free parking but the Library clerk pay for it? Where is the equity there? But the whole thing should be reviewed; there is no harm in that.

So fast forward to today. The Parking Garage Fund has a debt service of $2.5 Million and a budget deficit of about $750,000. How are you going to pay for that? Increase fees or increase our property taxes; there is no other choice. Yes, I guess we could cut back on ordinary expenses but then we would go back to the days of dirty, unsafe, poorly maintained, crumbling City garages. No one wants that.

So for the life of me, I do not understand why is the current administration being blamed for trying to balance the budget on the garage. And speaking of blame… The editorial states “Since City Manager Bernie Lynch arrived on the scene in August 2006, the city’s total budget appropriation has soared from $285,160,133 to $318,636,487 this fiscal year, or $33.5 million.”

How disingenuous? The FY 2007 budget was passed in June 2006. A full two months before CM Lynch arrived on the scene. You want to judge CM Lynch’s performance you need to view the FY 2009 Budget; FY 2008 was an adjustment on incorrect revenue assumptions as well as underfunded expenses. If I am not mistaken in FY 08 we were faced with a budget shortfall of about $6.5 Million based on erroneous FY 07 figures. According to my calculations, the budget increase during the three previous years preceding CM Lynch increased by $32.2 Million. Why isn’t that fact presented?

And as far as taxes are concerned, the paper writes “During the same period, the property-tax levy has soared from $77,280,078 to $95,420,809, or $18,200,731. That’s a whopping 23.5 percent tax increase in three fiscal years.” Doesn’t the levy have something to do with the evaluation and new builds? Does anyone really believe that the Lynch administration is fiscally irresponsible

Both FY 2008 and FY 2009 Budgets are on line. There is also a pdf file on FY 2007.

It is easy to say cut “payroll and programs.” But which programs? The Parks? Marketing? The Auditorium? Cops and Firemen? I am sure that there are still some areas where the City could operate more efficiently. Automation is one option. But you would think the management at the Sun would know what may happen when you cut back on “payroll and programs” your product suffers. Is this what we want for our City?

[Filed under Local politics, Media, City Council] [link]

25 Responses to “The Parking Budget”

Eleanor Rigby Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I totally agree with one exception. Yes, city employees should be charged for parking in the garage just like the rest of us.

As an example I work for a private institution in Boston. It has a number of parking facilities and I have to purchase a parking pass. It’s not free. In addition that parking pass only allows me the opportunity to enter the lot to find a parking space, it does not guarentee that I will get one!

As for the rest of the editorial, I wonder if the writers of those missives even read their own paper sometimes!
Shalloteer Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
The Early Garage problem is the fault of Baacke and Coggins, not Lynch. They pushed the project through city council and they bought it. The question is: were Baacke and Coggins stupid or did they have other motives? Coggins is a hack and Baacke has no business experience, so maybe they were self serving and stupid. The other thing about bureaucrats, is that they don’t care about our money. It’s just there for them to spend. Everyone knew the garage would not support retail next to the worst run shelter on the east coast. Duh.
waittilnextyr Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The JAM parking garage was approved before CM Lynch’s term as Mimi points out, although I believe he signed off on the bonds in September, one month after being on the job. Some may say he could have stopped it, but since the City Council had approved it that would not be a reasonable thing for him to do.

Since then the Manager recommended and the City Council approved making parking an enterprise fund. At the time, the Parking Superintendent indicated that he could operate off prior surpluses until 2009, at which time rates would have to be raised again. Well, it is 2009 and some more revenue is needed as forecast 2 years ago. Maybe there could be some cost savings, but with most of the cost being bonds that would be difficult unless they could refinance the bonds. And it would be unwise to make significant cuts in the operational budget as the garages are now being run well, as opposed to some of the difficulties when garage revenue was being diverted to to supplement the General Fund.

However, there should be some ways to increase revenue without rate hikes, such as eliminating the “perks” to City employees, or at least having some cost sharing arrangement for use of the garages, and boosting usage at the Early garage in particular. Although that is somewhat in the hands of the lethargic economy, more aggressive marketing of the commercial space is important. After all, it is that commercial space that has created the need to separate the bonding and create a higher rate due to the non-municipal use of that first floor space.
sd Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Charging city employees for parking is a lose/lose situation. It would be more cost effective to ask them all to just take a pay cut. Here’s why - although some city employees that live downtown may just walk to work, many others will try to park out in the neighborhoods near city hall with no meters. The cops will park wherever they want because nobody gives a cop a ticket. City employees will push to have their pay pushed up to cover the cost of the parking pass. Then all that happens is that the parking pass cost becomes taxable income where right now it is a tax free benefit. The city will have to pay people more so that they can give more money to the feds in taxes and pay for a parking pass - or park on a street without meters. In the end, the employee loses and the city loses. If the city wants to get more out of employees its more cost effective to negotiate a pay cut.
K-R-S Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
How about, rather than naming our garages, or any tax payer funded facility after a politician living or dead, sell the naming rights.
Just think..instead of the Early Garage it could be the Trinity Garage or the Comcast Garage. Perhaps sell ad space in the garages?
I’m not one for cutting many folks a lot of slack, however, have to agree w/ sd on this one.
Would be nice also, if city employee cars w/ the city of Lowell placards didn’t take up all of the metered spaces around city hall. Truly frustrating to not be able to find a spot at times and makes me late which I can’t stand!
walking the halls Says:
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
There’s been a lot of great points already made in the responses. As usual the Sun article on employee parking is off base and misleading. City employees don’t get free parking. The City has parking lots at city hall for its employees just like many businesses. Then there is some overflow that goes onto the streets.
Mr. Lynne Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Shalloteer,

At the time the garage was being ‘pushed’ the price of construction due to the price of materials was skyrocketing because of the economics of the time. The issue at the time was that the cost increases were due to pricing changes that came about as a result of waiting too long already, and that waiting even longer was just going to make it worse. Nobody saw a global slowdown coming that would cause the demand for steel to drop. Development all over the world (particularly China) was pushing prices higher. In this context, the question was ‘do you want a garage?’. If the answer was yes, then the wise course of action was not to delay.

So yeah… the decision was precisely because people did care about money.
Eleanor Rigby Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
One point for SD,

If fees for parking passes are payroll deductions whatever a person pays is not taxable income so in essence they are getting a tax break for parking in a garage.
Papa Smurf Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“Most employers do not require their employees to pay for parking.”

What ?? Employers in the suburbs or those with abundant land for parking lots, provide parking. Employers in downtowns absolutely don’t pick up their employees parking. Last I checked, LHS was located downtown.
Shalloteer Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Mr. Lynne, Sorry for the confusion my good man but I was not speaking in reference to the decision regarding the cost of construction. My point is to the initial decision to build ANY garage at that location even at the initial price estimates. The income from the proposed retail space should have been considered $0 in any market with the shelter in such close proximity. A businessperson would have recognized this and addressed these problems if they wanted the space rented in ANY market. Adum Baacke has never operated a lemonade stand, never mind run a business or developed property. The kid has no idea what makes a successful project. All he knows is what he has learned from textbooks that have no bearing in a place like Lowell. His knowledge is theoretical, not practical.

Last sentence edited out by Mimi because as PC reminded us, slanderous name calling does not make the cut on LiL.
BPC Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
During the debate over building the Early Garage former City Manager Jim Sullivan predicted that the garage would end up being a disaster for taxpayers, I fear he will be proved right.

The retail space is almost completely vacant, although a few units have signed leases. One is Garcia Brogan’s, a Mexican-Irish restaurant that I’m guessing may not be the best idea for a business, particularly in a recession. We’ll see how long that lasts, if it ever even opens.

Now the City is begging the police to relocate their training center from Cross Point, which might not be a bad idea considering the junkie/homeless presence in the area.

The idea that a parking garage would somehow drive investment and encourage people to move into this neighborhood was laughable to begin with, with the economic collapse it is insanity to expect people to buy luxury condos next door to a homeless shelter.

Don’t be surprised to see Trinity Financial begin to scale back their plans for the JAM area as it becomes apparent that even the existing real estate in the area is vacant, and there is no demand for hundreds of new luxury condos.

Unfortunately the entire Hamilton Canal plan seems like a case of wishful thinking, I hope the economy can recover quickly and the project works out like planned but I highly doubt we will ever see anything resembling the original artist’s rendering.
Lynne Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
BPC: First, the HCD is not mere “luxury condos” - if you’ve seen the plans, you’ll note they are a mix of affordable housing, condos, retail and commercial. Some of that commercial office space will be eaten up real quick when the court moves to Jackson. Once there are some office occupants, restaurants and retail will become attracted, and I think the condos/artist housing will easily attract buyers/renters.

I think the garage will be fine once the rest of the area is cleaned up a bit. Already there’s some new stuff down there - the new eatery nearby, etc. This stuff doesn’t happen overnight, folks. Though you are right - a garage by itself does not drive investment. It takes a more holistic approach. However, without a garage, a lot of other stuff might be dead on arrival…due to lack of parking. Starting with the garage? Maybe not the best idea. But one was needed to be had. Eventually. Well, we have one so we might as well continue down the path of public-private partnerships to get going on the rest.
Turtledove Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Shalloteer…”The Early Garage problem is the fault of Baacke and Coggins”

No, no ,no…the real reason for Early Garage problems is the failing economy…in the end the responsibility lies with the city councilors who voted to build it…Now they would all like to be re-elected and do not want a tax increase to stand in their way.

In fact, the Early garage is doing quite well in the actual “parking-of-cars” business. The retail space could not have come available at a worse time.
BPC Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Lynne: I do realize that there is more to the development than luxury condos, but condos are certainly a major part of the project. They are also key to the success of the project because theoretically the residents of these condos will be shopping, working, and parking in the area. When this project was proposed a few years ago, housing prices were 25%-35% higher than they are now, and are unlikely to return to 2005-2006 levels for quite some time. Also I have heard that the courthouse is on hold indefinitely, and ground will not even be broken until 2015 at the earliest.

As for the area being cleaned up, how exactly is that going to happen? No one likes to live near a homeless shelter, but we do live in fairly large city, and these facilities have to go somewhere. Is it even possible for the city to force them to move? Not that I think that would be an ethical thing to do, just wondering if it is an option. Beyond the homeless shelter, Appleton St. and the side streets running to Middlesex are pretty bad as well. Mostly garages, tenement apartment buildings, and vacant storefronts. That is why it is so difficult to pull off this kind of massive urban renewal, you can’t just eliminate unsightly elements of urban life.

I don’t want to sound all doom and gloom, I visit stores in the JAM area when I can, and certainly spend a good deal of my disposable income at downtown bars, restaurants, and stores. However I have lived in Lowell my whole life, and it doesn’t bother me having to brush up against a vagrant or two to pick up a sandwich, I can certainly see how it would be disturbing if not outright frightening to walk around the area if you weren’t familiar with it.

I guess my beef really is this: Both the developers and city and state officials brushed past the very serious problems in the area, and just assumed that housing prices would continue to rise, the homeless would magically disappear, and chain stores would be fighting it out to rent space in a parking garage. They were wrong. Now the question is, what can we as citizens do to help improve the situation?
Shalloteer Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Sweet Lynne, I love you. If everyone in Lowell were like you it would truly be a better place. Alas, has the wool been pulled over your beautiful eyes? Trinity Financial is a hoar. They are the bloated pigs of development who feed at the trough of government subsidy. They say the right things, but more importantly they have the right connections. Keefe is wired into the seedy underbelly of Lowell and Boston. They will suck every dollar out of the city, state, and federal government that they can. They may build the first project, but what they are really going to do is permit the site using the charade process then sell of each parcel to the highest bidder. This is their form of government/private partnership. Use the government to make the private developers rich.
BPC Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Shalloteer, I like the way you think. The particulars of Trinity’s plan were never important in determining if this project was going to happen, Keefe’s ties to Lowell and Boston hacks were the real selling point. Wait until construction gets underway and see who gets the plum contracts to “clean up” the blighted areas. I fear Lowell may be getting its own big dig, an ill-conceived, over budget, boondoggle that stretches on as long as the developers and pols can make it last.

You’re right on with the criticism of public/private partnerships, as a libertarian, I often find myself defending “greedy corporations”. What I try to point out is that no corporation can take your money without your consent UNLESS, they are working hand in hand with the state. This is where really horrible things happen, when private greed uses the power of government to fleece the marks, I mean, taxpayers.

Not to worry though, I’m sure the Lowell Sun will stay right on top of the situation, and look out for our best interests.
Mr. Lynne Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Just so we know, what exactly are the ties that they have that make the deal suspect? Also, did they get some kind of subsidy deal for their development near the TD garden?
joe from Lowell Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Adam Baacke was the driving force behind the comprehensive zoning ordinance revision that has done so much to protect Lowell’s neighborhoods and encourage quality development. Remember the ugly, huge, flat-front townhouse projects that were being jammed in five years ago? Thank Adam Baacke that we don’t see those anymore. The idea that he doesn’t know Lowell or its needs it idiotic.

We are in the middle of the deepest recession in 70 years. To say that the failure to lease out some retail space in this environment MUST BE because the project was inherently flawed, rather than because NOBODY CAN LEASE OUT RETAIL SPACE, demonstrates an aversion to reality.

Every single project that has helped to revitalize Lowell and its downtown in the past 20 years has been met with the boo-hoo, we’re not good enough, nobody will ever want to live in an urban hellhole like that wailing that I see on this thread, and Lowell has proven them wrong EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

And it will again.
waittilnextyr Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Good comments, joe from lowell.

However, I do think the Early garage plan was flawed, but would not lay that at the feet of Mr. Baacke who didn’t become DPD manager until months after the garage was bonded and underway. The commercial space usage of the garage has apparently caused the City to split the bonding into two parts, one being tax-exempt (for municipal parking purposes) and the other not (for commercial usage). The latter bond carries an increased rate. The complementary use of the space must have been considered a positive, but it would have been better to have all parking at a reduced cost and leave the commercial usage to the neighborhood.

In any case, that is the hand dealt, and it is better to get the most out of it that we can, as its availability will add to the Hamilton Canal District’s possibilities, and that is where our focus should be.
sd Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
a break in a commercial street for a big garage along the street is not good. the lot needed the retail even if it takes a long time to work. i thought the financials for the garage never depended upon income from the retail, only the parking. the parking income will come when the court and cmaa and hamilton canal open. the garage will pay off.
Prince Charming Says:
April 26th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Have we loosened the restrictions on name calling and slander on this blog? It seems that not too long ago I was called to task regarding some pointed comments and was told, in no uncertain terms to “cool it”. I’m guessing that my email about taking off the gloves has “blown off the porch”. Does this mean that I am free to post whatever is going through this mind of mine? If so, fasten your seatbelts, you’re in for a bumpy ride.
Mimi Says:
April 26th, 2009 at 10:36 am
PC:

No, we did not. In retrospect we should have edited the comments when they were posted originally. I have edited them now.

You are right, slanderous name calling does not make the cut on LiL.
Prince Charming Says:
April 26th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
just checking.
joe from Lowell Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 7:43 am
waittilnextyear,

The complementary use of the space must have been considered a positive, but it would have been better to have all parking at a reduced cost and leave the commercial usage to the neighborhood. While this seems reasonable on its face, the problem is that having a parking garage facing the street will suck all the vibrancy out of that street, reducing the viability of neighborhood retail. Think about how much the bottom end of Market Street lagged behind the rest of the downtown as it redeveloped.
waittilnextyr Says:
April 28th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Yeah, I agree with both sd and joe that the commercial storefront presents a better face to the area than the blank wall that garage-only may. I don’t have the specific figures but I know that there are two bonds for the garage, and one is taxable due to the commercial use, so that increases the cost. And apparently some of the space will be converted to police training, so let’s hope that we don’t end up with the worst of both worlds.

April 22, 2009

The Parking Budget

25 Responses to “The Parking Budget”

Leave a Reply

LeftinLowell Tweets

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

Other:

Email us!

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Mar				May »
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30