Portland - Fee in Lieu of Parking Ordinance

cneal

Active Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
437
Reaction score
489
Next Monday's City Council meeting - at 7 pm on the 21st, in the Council chambers on the 2nd floor of City Hall - will decide the outcome of the Peninsula Transit Study's proposed "Fee In Lieu of Parking" concept.

Generally speaking, this ordinance would give developers of new buildings on the Portland peninsula an alternative to opt out of the city's parking requirements by paying into a new "Sustainable Transportation Fund" instead. This fee would be $10,000 per space. So, for instance, a new office building that would otherwise require 20 off-street parking spaces could instead pay $200,000 into the Sustainable Transportation Fund; or, alternatively, build only 10 parking spaces and pay $100,000 into the Fund. The incentive to do so comes from the fact that $10,000 per space is substantially less than the amount of money it would take to build a parking garage, and in many cases, it will also be more valuable for a developer to use their real estate for purposes other than parking.

The net result of this should be that Portland will reduce the costs of development while also diverting private developers' investments away from car parking, and towards sustainable transportation. Or, even more simply: fewer parking lots, more jobs and housing, better transit, and safer streets.Transportation Fund; or, alternatively, build only 10 parking spaces and pay $100,000 into the Fund. The incentive to do so comes from the fact that $10,000 per space is substantially less than the amount of money it would take to build a parking garage, and in many cases, it will also be more valuable for a developer to use their real estate for purposes other than parking.

These funds could be used for sidewalks, transit facilities, trails - all the good stuff we want more of. The ordinance currently states that the funds could also be used for shared parking garages, and that's something we might want to press the Council to amend. But it's not a dealbreaker - the use of the Fund will be determined annually in public hearings, and as long as we continue to hold elected officials accountable, we can make sure that the money is spent wisely on sustainable transportation.

To give you a rough idea of how powerful this might be: the City has proposed a new 400-car garage for the empty lots along Somerset Street in Bayside, which could cost well over $8 million. But suppose a developer comes along who wants to build on the empty lots down there without paying that much for parking, and having most employees come in on on the new trail or by transit instead.

Instead of giving over an entire city block to a huge garage, they might choose to build a much smaller 100-car garage on a smaller footprint for about $2 million, build more office space where the parking would have gone, and then pay $3 million (that's 300 times $10,000) into the Sustainable Transportation Fund in lieu of parking.

$3 million is a lot of money. It would be enough to buy 4 new buses for METRO and potentially establish a new bus route to deliver employees into Bayside, for instance. Or to build (with matching funds from the state and federal governments) a substantial part of the new Franklin Street. Or pay for a year's worth of commuter rail services between Portland, Brunswick, and Biddeford. It's serious money for the kinds of projects we'd like to see happen here.

So, at the end of the day, this hypothetical Bayside situation would yield:
more land in Bayside dedicated to functional living and workspace, instead of parking;
*300 fewer cars coming into the peninsula every day;
*$3 million for safer streets and/or new transit infrastructure;
*300 more transit riders/walkers/cyclists;
*the developer saves $3 million by building a smaller garage and has more space to rent out as well;
*lower rents for the developer's tenants - i.e., Portland businesses and households.

We should get a big turnout on Monday night from the city's bike/ped community, from transit supporters, from Portland Trails, from environmentalists, business people, affordable housing activists - EVERYONE - to show the City Council that their voters support this idea. I'd like to recruit at least ten people from the Bike/Ped Committee alone. The good news is that this vote is near the beginning of the evening's agenda, which means that it won't be a late night - we might even be out of there by 8 PM. And maybe celebrate with a frosty pint afterwards.

If you can't be there, please consider writing to our Councilors to let them know you support the idea. Here's their contact information:
http://www.portlandmaine.gov/council.htm

You can read the Council's evening agenda and its associated backup material here:
http://misc.portlandmaine.gov/current.pdf
The proposed Fee in Lieu ordinance packet begins on page 70 of that PDF.

Thanks, everyone!
 
Thanks for crunching the numbers. I do plan on attending the meeting. This is an excellent idea. I was at the planning board meeting where it was discussed too (one of them). I think the fee should even be lowered to some lesser amount. True, the sustainable transportation fund would dwindle, but that doesn't mean sustainable transportation would. Remember that these funds can only be spent within a certain limited geographic circumference and most of the developments that would need structured parking (dense areas downtown) would therefore take place in areas where there is little that could be accomplished with such funds anyway (because the infrastructure is already suited for dense pedestrian travel). The areas that would really benefit from a sustainable transportation fund that could be spent in their immediate surroundings are those that are in more suburban locations (including bayside) like Forest Ave and other more suburban areas of commerce. This would not only allow them to forgo building astronomically expansive parking lots, it would also mean that any money they paid in place of building them would be of more meaningful benefit to the surrounding suburban layout. So, the question becomes, how much does it cost to pave a parking spot. if it is less than $10,000 then we should change the amount to something less.
 
This is an excellent idea. This would certainly help with funding for transit and other related projects. Portland has more than enough parking. The waterfront is a good example. I'm eagerly awaiting to see how this helps Portland and it's residents!!
 
Yeah, the waterfront area is a blunder. The large parking lots north of commercial street (aka on the city side of commercial street) used to be very dense "slums" that the city cleared and sold the land under for development which never materialized.
 
Todd, speaking from the point of a hypothetical ability to treat Portland like "Sim City", I would like to see the waterfront continue to develop at the scale it currently has, with low rise shops, eateries, art galleries, boutique hotels, law offices and other businesses, etc in conventional and well designed brick buildings. I would then like to fill bayside up with modern high rise structures home to condos, major corporations, and hotels to support a larger convention center and arena, as well as a multi-modal transportation center linking bike cab bus and rail together as the hub of Maine and northern new england.

But, this won't happen because of the fee in lieu. The fee in lieu will, however, make such development (which is basically an amplified version of what the city has already played around with) more feasible. Essentially, the city code requires so many parking spaces per whatever, which (a) raises the cost of development, (b) promotes unsustainable transportation methods and (c.) takes up land. it also increases project opposition because people are mainly concerned about congestion of the neighborhood.

The sustainable transportation fund will be used to directly fund transportation improvements, but I doubt it will generate enough funding for something like a rail line. I anticipate more bike lanes and improved sidewalks.
 
I would really like to see a small streetcar that circulates around the peninsula and travels through all the major neighborhoods on the peninsula. I know this is wishful thinking.
Patrick, I like your hypothetical sim city. Bayside should get some modern high rises!
 
Well, Todd, thanks...that vision may not be wishful thinking. Bayside currently has the zoning in place to allow 15 story buildings, whereas a few years ago the heigh limit was 65 feet. the planners are trying to make it more urban. I can picture a streetcar system returning to Portland. But I see it more in the tourist section of town to be honest.
 
The other Portland's initial 5-mile loop cost the city $57 million in 2001. A downtown loop in Portland, Maine through Bayside and the Old Port, via Somerset, Franklin, Center, and Preble/Elm Streets, might be about 2 miles long, and cost roughly $30 million (adjusting a bit for inflation). If the federal and state governments picked up 80% of the cost, as is usual for big transit projects, that would leave the City of Portland with a bill for $6 million.

That's less than the cost of the Bayside parking garage that the City had planned to build itself. Under current zoning, the redevelopment of the parking lots around Brian Boru alone would probably require about 600 new parking spaces. If this ordinance passes, a developer could opt to pay the city's $6 million local match towards a new streetcar loop, which could serve commuters as well as drivers who park in other garages in different parts of the city, instead of building a $12 million parking garage in the middle of the high-rent Old Port.

So yes, as the economy recovers and developers begin building again, I think that this fund could absolutely make a downtown streetcar realistic. But again, it needs the public's support to pass, so I hope you'll be able to attend tonight's Council meeting in person.
 
thanks for crunching the numbers again. The only problem with the scenario is that it would likely be illegal to use the fee-in-lieu impact fee or exaction to fund transit improvements not directly related to the development from which they are taken. If, in the aggregate, something like $6 million could be amassed from several different developers, all along the route you outlined, each could pay for the area of track from which they would directly benefit (and which would directly alleviate the increased traffic congestion their project caused). This would be both legal and reasonable to expect. It would, however, require some real planning with someone like you with foresight. The city just doesn't seem to think that much about things like this, although they have gotten better in recent years.

Also, receiving federal assistance may be a lot easier for a large city like Portland, Or than it would for Portland, ME, which is at the center of a region that still shuns urban centers. It would have to be politically popular. CDBG funds in Portland (about 2.2 million each year) are spent mostly on social services. other transportation improvements are likely to go to inter-urban commuter rails before an intra-urban streetcar system. However, I don't mean to be so pessimistic about things, and what you suggested most certainly could be achieved, but it would take some legwork and persistence for sure.
 
Another potential hangup to the success of this ordinance is that, even if it successfully funded an intra city light rail or streetcar loop, people would still have to drive to a parking destination to board that loop. If it went as suggested above, my guess is that the parking facility would be somewhere in Bayside, and would result in even more parking in that neighborhood than is currently planned (due to a higher concentration). The problem really isn't fixed, its only shifted to outlying areas. Until Portland beefs up its residential density (which is also on the table for tonight's meeting) its economy will continue to depend on commuters. commuters, if and until a BRT or regional light rail line is established, will continue to commute into town as they already do.
 
Great news that this was enacted. I don't expect it to have a large impact right away, because development is slow, but it is a step in the right direction for sure. I was unaware until re-reading the proposal that it only applied on the peninsula. I think it should apply everywhere, but that would be difficult from a logistical standpoint (because to be an incentive off of the peninsula the price would have to be much lower, to be less than surface parking costs, but it would be illegal to treat different property owners differently with respect to fees). Also, I am not sure how the city could get away with using the sustainable transportation fund money to use as a match toward federal grant money (as today's article reported). it seems like the link between the exaction and the subsequent expenditure would be too remote, and if I remember correctly, ensuring such linkage was NOT too remote was a topic of great debate at the planning board meetings on this.
 

Back
Top