Parking, Reporting and Taxes
Ron Bolin, June 17, 2010
As I glanced over the 2009 Statement of Financial Information (SOFI) for 2009 recently released by the City, a payment of some $609,194.41 to Robbins Parking caught my eye. Who is paying who, I wondered? So I asked. While Council often neglects to respond, I have always found city staff responsive, if not always complete in their response. What I learned was interesting and instructive concerning how figures are managed.
In 2009, the city took in some $1,282,305 in parking related fees, permits, fines, etc.. We spent $1,004,456 in all related operating expenses. We paid $253,636 in debt payments for the Harbourfront and Bastion parkades. We had capital expenditures of $60,000 for Maffeo-Sutton interim parking. When all is balanced, we had a net loss (a subsidy to parking) of $35,788 which was funded from one of our parking reserve funds. So far, so good. If one’s goal is to break even on parking, then one can expect some variation from year to year and a 2.7% loss is within range if one overlooks the fact that the town and the downtown are both supposed to be growing in which case a negative figure is alarming.
But looking at the figures I received I noticed a glaring oversight. What about VICC parking? A further request got the response that, yes, the parking income figure included that from the VICC, but no, the debt payment associated with that space was not reported. I suggested an off the top of my head figure of $200,000 in debt repayment on the parking space in the VICC, but got no counter suggestion.
The upshot is that, sticking to my uncontested guess of $200,000 in debt repayment on VICC parking, plus the previously reported loss of $35,788, parking, most of it in the downtown area, cost taxpayers some $235,788 in 2009. This is not an insubstantial figure.
It is, in fact, a figure which demands attention to parking, particularly in the downtown area; to the way in which we keep our books, and to the need to consider the way in which parking and the downtown are linked. It may be that our losses are too great. It may also be that they are too small and that there should be some free parking time downtown which might or might not increase downtown traffic and reduce our costs. We all deserve a say in the way our money is spent and to have a accurate accounting of what things are costing us.
What do you think about the downtown parking situation? Should it be subsidized more than the current $235,788 (est)? Or less? Are you satisfied with the figures in the SOFI or in the annual Financial or the Municipal Reports?
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
Focusing on only one item out of several, since it is wiser to eat elephants, sometimes white ones, one bite at a time: $253,636 in debt payments for the Harbourfront and Bastion parkades. “Debt payment” means to me a payment like a mortgage payment. Maintenance, repainting of lines, filling of potholes, liability insurance, etc., are expenses. Does the City not own the Harbourfront and Bastion parkades free and clear? Are there mortgages or other encumbrances requiring payment registered on the City’s titles to those properties? I’d like the City to answer that question, or some road signs to where that information is available.
Wendy. Rather than providing answers which I believe to be true, it would be best to ask the elephant. My information came from:
Brian Clemens, Director of Finance: Brian.Clemens@nanaimo.ca
250-755-4431
Great questions Wendy. Let us know if/when you get an answer. Ron, do you know how someone can access info like this on the City website? An inventory of City owned assets and what if any long term financing is still in place on them? I’ll revisit NanaimoMap (http://maps.nanaimo.ca/nanaimomap/)for what might be at least a small piece of the puzzle.
From Bylaw 5000:
“CITY PARKADE” means the City parking structures and facilities located upon the following lands:
Bastion Street Parkade, situated on Lot 1, Plan 26912,
Nanaimo District. (Bylaw 5000.030)
Harbourfront Parkade, situated on Lot 1, Section 1 and part of the bed of the public harbour, Nanaimo District, Plan VIP65156, except parts in Air Space Plan VIP65336 and Air Space Plan VIP65337. (Bylaw 5000.030)
Port of Nanaimo Centre Parkade, situated on LT A, SEC 1, LD 32 and of the bed of the public harbour of Nanaimo, PLN VIP79754, LOT A, Section 1, Nanaimo District and of the bed of the public harbour of Nanaimo, Plan VIP79754. (Bylaw 5000.036)
Is not the debt associated with the VICC parkade part of the total for the whole centre. If so it would be a serious effort to separate which part of the repayment structure is for the parkade only. I suspect only a rough guestimation could ever be made. If we could find out the annual amount we pay to service the VICC debt, I suspect 1 or 2% of that would be to pay for the parkade. Also, since the VICC parkade is smaller then the combined space of the other two parkades, I’m inclined to believe that $200,000 might be a tad high.
I’m not sure that the parking revenue can be neatly tied to growth downtown. Is downtown growing? Are more people going downtown? Perhaps alternative ways to get downtown are being used so that parking demand is lower. I know I don’t drive downtown anymore even though I’m downtown all lot more then I used to be. Maybe my not using parking is the reason parking revenues are low. Its always my fault.
Hey, really good reporting, Ron. This kind of stuff makes a person think.
Sunny Dan: While I would not expect there to be an exact accounting for the parking part of the VICC, I would expect a reasonable estimate. After all, I presume we made one when we sold the commercial space… And I believe we pay about 5% on the circa $30,000,000 which we borrowed. I don’t believe that the $200,000 estimate is too far off. I believe if it were outlandish I would have had a rejoinder from the city.
As for the growth of downtown I hear about it all the time. With Pacifica and Vivo and ??? offering condos and more to come,the 9.3% pop growth for Nanaimo since 2005, the touted attendance at the VICC and the increased bustle downtown, one would think that parking income should be rising rather than decreasing. Something doesn’t add up. Maybe we need to take a closer look at what is really happening rather than depending on spin.
And yes, at bottom, it is your fault. And mine. And a whole lot of us… :-)