Parking revenues up year-to-date; staff warns of garage maintenance funding gap

At the April 21 Planning, Economic Development and Environment Committee meeting, the city’s parking services manager said year-to-date revenues for FY26 are higher than the same period in the prior three years, but regular garage maintenance funding remains insufficient and has led to borrowing for large repairs in the past.

Sabrina Tali, parking services division manager, told the committee that parking garages account for about 61% of the division’s revenue (approximately $3 million), while on-street meters provide about 26% and enforcement generates roughly 10%. She said the division manages four public garages (about 1,400 spaces), roughly 750 on-street metered spaces, four monthly-permitted surface lots (about 180 spaces) and 155 on-street permit spaces.

Tali said the Walker consultant study recommended setting aside about $1 million per year for ongoing garage maintenance to avoid large, deferred repairs that require borrowing. For FY26 the city’s transfer for that purpose is about $350,000, leaving the program far short of the consultant’s suggested annual target.

“Borrowing for routine, ongoing operating maintenance isn’t ideal,” Tali said, adding that the division favors increasing dedicated transfers for recurring maintenance while still using debt strategically for larger capital projects. Council members asked whether the policy goal should be to grow maintenance reserves or accept more borrowing for capital; staff warned parking revenues can be volatile after events such as storms or public-health disruptions and recommended caution.

Tali also compared city rates with county peers. The city’s current policy is first hour free then $2 per hour thereafter with a $15 daily maximum; the county model differs and the county’s daily maximum is $12, Tali said. Monthly permits range broadly; the city’s monthly rates are approximately $65–$130 depending on facility and permit type.

Why it matters: deferred routine maintenance increases long-term costs and presents safety risks in parking facilities. Council members asked staff to clarify policy goals, including whether to prioritize increased ridership, lower cost-per-rider, or sustained capital maintenance funding, and requested additional historic comparisons and policy options.

Next steps: staff will return with further financial details, year-end numbers when posted, and options for aligning rates and transfers with maintenance and capital priorities.