City Council

City of Salem, Massachusetts "7Yeit ;l l*it{i '" #(fl 11.q.,r-.7s" "Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.t. c. 30A ss. 18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033." The City CouncilCommittee on Ordinances. Licenses and LesalAffairs co-posted with the Committee of the Whole met in the Council Chamber on Thursday, July 18,2024 at 5:20 P.M. for the purpose of discussing the matters(s) listed befow. Notice of this meeting was posted on July 16,2024 at 12:19 P.M. {This meeting is being recorded} ATTENDANCE ABSENT WERE: Councilor Davis Joining from the Committee of the Whole: Councilors Prosniewski, Stott,lenylo, and Council President Hapworth From the City Staff: David Kucharsky, Director of the Department of Transportation Ordinance to amend an Ordinance Traffic- Ch.42, Sec. 75 relative to Resident Sticker Parking Ordinance to amend an Ordinance Traffic - Ch. 42, Sec 75A Resident Sticker Parking - Temporary October Resident Permit Parking Councilor Morsillo explains that this is the third meeting on Resident Parking. Before us we have changes to the resident parking zones, the fees related to parking permits and visitor parking permits, the streets within the resident parking zones, and we have some new amendments to those streets in the Willows. We also have the ordinance for the October resident parking, including a visitor pass and the fees related with that. Mr. Kucharsky begins by presenting the new amendments and information on how the City will be handling visitor permits. On page 3 of the printout of the new language for Chapter 42, Section 75, the City is proposing seasonal resident parking for streets in the Willows: Bayview, Beach, Columbus, Dustin, Fort Ave, lsland and Sutton Aves. Enforcement would be from April 1 to October 31. Fees for seasonal permits would be priced at S10 for the resident permit, with visitor passes priced at S15 and 525 for the first and second passes. Mr. Kucharsky continues with a change to how Visitor Passes will be controlled. Visitor Passes for everyone will simply be a pass that residents can change at will. They will not be blocks of 7 days. The registration and removal of a visitor plate will happen instantaneously. Residents can also call the Parking office to register a visitor if they are having technical issues. Councilor Morsillo takes a moment to explain to the committee that this is a new system. With a change in any system there are hiccups, and the new parking system is no exception. We heard from a resident at our last City Council meeting that she could not get her resident permit at the Parking Office, because the attendant working that evening did not know how to process her permit. She was an elderly woman who did not have a smart phone and needed to get her permit in person. The problem was resolved the next day, and she had her parking permit. Mr. Kucharsky explains that they transitioned from one system to another and had to move a lot of data. They are working every day to address any issues that come up. They transitioned 15,000 tickets, both paid and unpaid. He apologized for the issues, but they work daily to correct any that occur. Residents who do not have a smart phone or computer can come to the Department office in the Annex or to the Parking Office in the garage to get registered. They can also call if they are having trouble online to get registered. Councilor Morsillo asks about the data collected in the new system and what the department and the Council can learn about how parking spaces are used, particularly data related to visitor permits. Mr Kucharsky states that in terms of the visitor passes, they will know when a new plate is entered and how long the plate is registered. That doesn't mean the visitor was in the City the whole time. They can collect data on whether the plate was picked up by enforcement when parked in the zone. They are hopeful that residents will utilize the visitor permits honestly, and for no more than 7 days at a time. ln other words, visitor permits are not to be used year-round by one particular car instead of getting.a resident permit. Councilor Morsillo reminds the Council that a few years ago, we dealt with the problem of visitor passes being abused and utilized by the same car for the entire year, instead of getting a parking permit. At that time, there was a 7-day limit on the use of a visitor pass, but it is difficult to enforce. Councilor Morsillo hopes that over the next year, we can collect more data on how visitor passes are used, which will better inform the department and the Council on how to amend the ordinance if needed. Mr. Kucharsky agrees and includes home healthcare and contractor use as well in the data that can be better understood. Councilor Morsillo states that we can look forward to an update form the Department about how the visitor passes, home healthcare workers and contractors are utilizing the system, how easy it is for them to get their permit, if it is being abused in any way. The Council will bring fonuard a motion for this meeting. Councilor Hapworth asks for clarification on home healthcare workers, and the process for obtaining a permit. Mr. Kucharsky states that they can use a resident's driveway, use a visitor pass, or get a pass from the Transportation department. They just ask that the department be updated each month about the status of the healthcare permit. Councilor Hapworth thinks that it will be a lot to ask of some elderly residents to keep the department informed about the status of the home healthcare permit. He asks if the healthcare worker or their company can do the updates and obtain the permits. Mr. Kucharsky says they can go through the employer, they just need to call the department. Councilor Cohen agrees with Councilor Hapworth that the onus should be on the healthcare worker, not the resident. Councilor Watson-Felt asks if the home healthcare worker is getting a different kind of permit, or if it is tied to the resident. Mr. Kucharsky says it would be a difterent kind of permit, allowing the worker to park in the zone. lt would not be tied to the resident. lt is not intended to be the new system for home healthcare workers or contractors. lt is meant to be another way if the resident is unable to register the car. Councilor Watson-Felt thinks that we can't put an "invisible" process on a resident who may be suffering from dementia or other mental health issues. We need a robust plan and get the word out. Councilor Harvey states that he spoke to a woman who runs a cornpany for home healthcare. They have 500 employees, sometimes one gets sick and someone subs in at the last minute. He asks if the companies can be contacted to get information to them about this program. Mr. Kucharsky states that they have a list of companies from the October parking and will reach out to them. Councilor Harvey asks if something is missed and if the worker gets a ticket, will it be rescinded? Mr. Kucharsky states that they already do this. And remember that only 18% of the streets have year-round resident parking. Councilor Jerzylo asks if there can be a hybrid approach, with a sticker and physical visitor pass. No one likes the new system. She also is against raising the fees. Can we wait and see what the enforcement tickets bring in to cover the costs? Mr. Kucharsky states that he needs to look into a hybrid approach. Would the person register online then give the sticker to another car? Councilor Jerzylo states that the sticker would be visible to the police and enforcement. The Willows has no enforcement at the meters and along the streets. Councilor Hapworth says that familiari{ with the existing system feels better to residents. He thinks we need something where the visitor placard is used because it is easier for residents. He asks if enforcement fines can be used to offset costs. Mr. Kucharsky states that the Department of Revenue was clear that fines should not be used to offset the cost of the program. Councilor Cohen has heard from residents that the only way to enforce is to have stickers so that residents can call the police for enforcement. He says that we have been assured that this will provide more random consistent enforcement, and will benefit residents in the long run when the issues are ironed out. Councilor Prosniewski goes back to those who need care in their homes. The companies don't send the same people every day and some need several health professionals during the day. lt seems easier to pass the visitor pass to them as they arrive. He questions whethei someone who is not able to use a phone or computer can handle the stress of registering vehicles. Mr. Kucharsky states again that they will be reaching out to healthcare providers to get the workers enrolled. Councilor Prosniewski asks about contractors, and the need to stop and register the workers as they arrive at the house. lt doesn't seem efficient. Mr. Kucharsky states that with contractors they already have examples of contractors calling the department to get passes because the resident isn't giving them the visitor pass. We are trying to move away from the physical permit or visitor pass. The LPR vehicle will go down the street and read the plates. They will need to get out of the vehicle if the plate is not registered and write a ticket. Councilor Morsillo explains that it will take until next June to get everyone over to the new system hecause there is a rolling registration. Mr. Kucharsky agrees and states that they will have hybrid enforcement for the next year. Councilor Harvey asks about a contractor who gets a visitor placard - the enforcement person will need to get out of their car because the car is not registered, and will then see the placard (because of the rolling registration and hybrid approach for the next year) so he doesn't see why we can't retain the hang tags for visitors moving forurard. He also states that the information from the Department of Revenue was an opinion, and he understands the reason is that the enforcement fees can't be counted on moving forward. ls there a way to use a 3-year average moving forward to estimate revenue from enforcement? He understands it could vary, but using an average is better than not applying the revenue. lt was an opinion, they didn't say we couldn't use the fines. Councilor Jerzylo asks if the desk personnel at the police department can enter registration information to check for permits. Mr. Kucharsky states that he is already working with Lt. Tucker for plate readers and ticket printers as well as a way for the desk personnel to enter the information. Councilor Morsillo asks for the hours of enforcement by the Department of Transportation. Mr. Kucharsky states that they are Mon-Sat 8AM-6PM, Sunday from Noon to 6PM. Public Comment Councilor Morsillo reads a letter into the record from MaryBeth Bainbridge: "l am sorry I cannot attend the 18th of luly 2024, meeting due to a prior engagement. I am disappointed the city moved to a digital app for parking as it is elitist and shortsighted. Given the numerous glitches, I am not in support of the city increasing any parking related fees given our high taxes. Thank you for your attention to this matter." Steve Kapantais - He states that in the past few meetings, the consensus from this committee was that residents were not readily finding parking in their neighborhood. ln general terms it would be fair to summarize your position, as the residents are not receiving the intended service of parking and that ticketing would provide that service. He goes on to say that the "determination that fines from enforcements shouldn't be included is inaccurate. lt's not even close to what was in the email. First, before we go over exactly what was said in the email, you've received half of the communication. You don't know what question was asked of the Dor. You don't know how it was prefaced. You don't know what criteria was put on it. lt was never memorialized in writing. You have a response to some question that was asked over the phone. I have contacted the DOR. The chief counsel of the DOR is looking into the matter and will respond by the end of the month. How can you make a decision now, when you know the DOR will be responding. But let's look at exactly what was said. The quote from the DOR in the email - "ultimately ticketing the non-permit offenders shouldn't be considered as somehow supporting a service to the permit  holders." You've argued for 2 meetings, for 2 meetings many of you have spoken and said that ticketing does support this service. That fact alone, that revenue must be included, and I'm sure that's what the DOR will conclude. 2nd - the assertion that the LPR System and licensing fees are an additional cost to the city is false, absolutely false. The Lpr.LPR System has an ROl, return of interest, of 0 point 7 years. The LPR. System will not only pay for itself in 8 and a half months, that 1st year will generate an additional 30,0$ in income and 130,000 in income in every subsequent year. Why was that data not presented at this board? Why did somebody have to ask for that? And then email it to this board? lt's not a cost. lt's a revenue generating machine. 3'd - estimates of parking, enforcement salaries included, can only be best described as penciled, whipped. At best. There are no assumptions listed in the method used to calculate the estimates. More importantly, data is collected on the parking tickets. Things like dates, times, location, employee type of fine giving. Why can't we get this data? We've been asking for it for over 2 years. The parking department is either refusing to provide it, or they don't have the capability. Both are problems. 4th - multiple members of public have been asking for this information. Why can't we get it. We even narrowed our scope of what we were asking for. A simple question was asked. We'd like to know how many resident parking violations were issued by month for 2 and a half years and how much those tickets had for revenue. They can't provide that data? They provide ranges. Well, it's somewhere between 100 120,000 a year. This department handles millions of dollars. Why can't we get an accurate response from them? 5th the actions by the parking department to over exaggerate the cost of resident parking can only be explained by their overzealous attempt to increase fees to residents, to keep the revenue within their own department. I make this statement based on the fact that the director tried to include the cost of snowplowing and road maintenance? When we lst asked this question. Ridiculous! Second. His comments when answering a question at the lst OLLA meeting. lf I'm wrong on who asked the question, I apologize, but I believe it was Ward 4. Councilor Harven who asked a direct question. Can't we use the fines from parking after an awkward moment of silence his response: Well, it doesn't matter, because that just goes to the general fund. ln other words. that means my department lose money. I don't get it. He's obviously conflicted in closing parking. Enforcement is not only an integral pa* of resident parking program, but the sole purpose of enforcement is to ensure that residents achieve the service of having parking available. Therefore the fines collected make resident, parking itself sufficient. It's enough funds collected to pay for it. I can't wait for the DOR to respond. As far as the parking department not providing accurate estimations, not providing data on tickets issued, not providing revenue for resident parking over exaggerating the cost and publicly acknowledging that their concerns is about bringing revenue to their department, are deeply concerning. I would ask that the parking department have a third-party audit that evaluates their record keeping, and their financial statements. Thank you." Justin Whittier - wanted to associate himself with the comments from Steve Kapantais. He agrees with everything he said. He appreciates everything said tonight about the physical placards and stickers, especially for the elderly who are not able to navigate the system. Also care givers and contractors from other towns with different languages, we really need to maintain the ability for these people. "l want to reiterate that the spreadsheet that's been offered giving financial considerations here, there's a number of questions on there, not least of which, as I believe, Steve Kapantais has pointed to before, is in terms of staff time in the month of October. That seems to be a miscalculation based on annual salaries as opposed to the month of October. lf you look into that, I think that you will find that that's the case. But that's rather small ball in the big picture. But I think it's representative of some of the larger questions here. But, the main point is again the question of expenditures on traffic enforcement tickets and ticket fines and revenues. So if we're being told that we can't include the revenues from tickets, clearly, we can't include the expenditures which go into collecting those tickets. That would seem to be just basic accounting. lt doesn't make any sense to me, and I think to most people in Salem, that you would include the cost of issuing .. tickets, for example, but you can't include the revenue from those tickets. So I hope the Council will sort through that and clarify that. And only then, when you have a clear picture based on the financial picture based on that, can you then reasonably decide whether and how much resident fees should be increased in order to cover these costs. That seems like a basic first step, and I hope and I trust that you will do that. Thank you very much." Jen Birenbach asks if the program is already being implemented with allthe problems to date, can we opt out of it? When? And how much would it cost to opt out of the program?  End of Public Comment Councilor Morsillo asks where we stand as a committee? Councilor Cohen finds it hard to associate the cost of tickets versus the assignment of funds because the people who are issuing the tlckets are employed by speclfic departments: police, transportation, etc, When we get a budget, we look at the totality. He wants to move to the digital platform as soon as possible but understands the public's concerns about the use of physical placards and stickers. He thinks the department is evolving and anticipating some of the concerns, allowing contractors and healthcare workers to register themselves. He thinks with better, consistent enforcement, not sporadic, resident-led enforcement, as the enforcement improves, there will be fewer fines given. This is the nature of enforcement. We gloss over the 18% statistic (percentage of resident only streets), there is a lot of work done to support these streets. 82% of the residents are helping to cover the costs of providing this service to 18% of the residents. Councilor Harvey asks if the fees can be removed and kept separate in the ordinance. Some agree with the new zones but not the fees. Councilor Morsillo explains that all of the changes are in the same ordinance, which is why they were submitted together. The committee can move to change anything, that is our job. We can keep the feet revert to the current fees, choose something in-between. We seem to be in agreement on the new zones, the list of streets, etc. The outstanding piece is the fees. She states that she is flexible at this point. This is a new system, the department doesn't want increased work. lfs a lot of work to enforce parking. The next year is going to be a lot, getting the new system up and running, ironing out the details. lt's going to be a learning curve. lf there are issues with visitor passes in the digital form, there are ways the department can adjust the policy. But the policy is not in the ordinance, that is the department's job. lt is not before us. This discussion was important for the department and Mr. Kucharsky to understand the issues, including the healthcare workers and making sure they are not charged. lt is important to have this full conversation because these are public meetings. Councilor Morsillo asks for motions or comments. Councilor Cohen states that he has three amendments, and begins with a motion to accept the list of Willows streets as seasonal resident parking streets in the Blue zone: Bayview, Beach, Columbus, Dustin, Fort, lsland, and Sutton Aves as seasonal resident parklng, seconded by Councilor Watson-Felt. The motion carries 4{). Councilor Cohen makes a motion for the Department of Transportation to present a review to the City Council at 6 months and then every year annually. Councilor Morsillo, suggests that it is cleaner to present thls as a separate Order in a City Council meeting because the standing order would not be a part of the Ordinance under discussion. Councilor Cohen withdraws his motion. Councilor Cohen then states that his final motion is regarding the fees, but he would like to continue the conversation first. Councilor Morsillo asks if there are any suggestions on the fees. Councilor Prosniewski states that the residents raise their eyebrows when we raise fees. We are moving to a new system that is supposed to make things more efficient and cost effective, but we are raising fees. We are waiting for information from the DOR still, and waiting to find out how much we will get through enforcement and how it can be used for the program. Councilor Hapworth states that he would like to support what Councilor Prosniewskijust said. He thinks there will be a transition period to prove that this system will work. We don't want the rest of the city to financially support resident only ... parking but there is space to raise the fees more gradually. Councilor Jerzylo finds it hard to put more fees on the residents when the Council approved tax relief for a private business. Councilor Harvey moves to remove Section D from the ordinance and bring it up as a separate matter. When questioned, he would like to keep the new fees in committee while we wait for more data on how the system is working. Councilor Morsillo asks if it makes sense keep this in committee, to wait for data, which willtake longer than the remaining year. We have the ability to keep the fees the same, and take up another amendment to fees next year after the system has had time to be used and collect data. Councilor Cohen states that if we keep it in committee, it sends a message to residents that it is in limbo, and maybe the fees will be raised and maybe they won't. lt makes more sense to pass something tonight, either keep the fees the same, or raise them. Councilor Morsillo states that she came into this meeting understanding that this is an expensive program to administer to 19% of the streets in the City. We can move forward with a $10 permlt fee, with a $5 seasonal permit fee. lt gets into the philosophy of what resident only parking is. You get a permit for every driver for every car in your household, and you get two visitor permits as well. That's a lot of cars in a street that has limited parking. One of the reasons that visitor permits are priced higher is to discourage the use of all of the extra visitor passes. She does not think that S20 is excessive for permit parking. But she recognizes that this year will be challenging for the department and for residents as they learn the new system. So maybe we don't jump to $20 this year, maybe we do a gradual increase of StO this year, or maybe we keep the fees where they are now. She thinks it makes sense not to move forward with the proposed fees this year as the issues are ironed out. Councilor Watson-Felt states that there is a willingness to give the new system space and time. The new fees are adding new stress and dissatisfaction to a system that is already stressful. We want to pass most of the new changes, but the fees are the sticking point. The new fees are the work to this ordinance and we need to pass something tonight. She proposes to take each one in turn. lf we don't want to change the permit fee to $20, we can leave it as is now. We want to make sure that the seasonal permit fees are included. We need to make sure the nonresident fees are included tonight. Councilor Morsillo asks if she has a motion. She does not. Councilor Stott explains that change is hard but we are on the right path, and we need to have faith that the department is doing their job. She states that this is the deal of the century: $5 for 200 square feet of personal property storage. She thinks the fee needs to be increased, but maybe not to S20 this year. We have seen over and over in front of us that fees do not increase for many years, then we have a large increase. We can move forward with an incremental increase this year, but if this does not come out of committee with a fee increase, she hopes that we can have the vote in the full council to address the fees, because they should be increased, and perhaps we will have more information then. She also does not think that S10 is appropriate for visitor parking of personal propefi on LBYo of the streets in Salem. The burden of covering the costs of the program is placed on the residents who do not have the luxury of resident only parking. Councilor Watson-Felt moves to accept the seasonal permit fee of S10, then removes it from the table. Councilor Morsillo asks if there is a wlll to change the resident permit fee to S10, and the seasonal fee to $5. Councilor Stott agrees with this change. Councilor Jerzylo disagrees, saying that this is raising the fees, when we said we didn't want to. There is confusion on the idea. Councilor Morsillo explains again that the idea is to raise the resident permit to S10 and the fee for the seasonal fee is $5. Councilor Cohen supports the idea and states that this begins to address the fact that 82% of residents help to financially support this program only available to 18% of the streets. The department and the police department will have an extraordinary amount of work to do to get this up and running and to educate residents and others about the new system. He thinks it's fair to take the 510 and 55 approach. Councilor Watson-Felt moves to make the resident parking permit S1Q the visitor passes would be S30 and S50. Councilor Prosniewski states that we are putting the cart before the horse and that the DOR may say that we can use the enforcement fines to offset the costs. He asks if there is still a motion to remove the fees from this discussion. Councilor Morsillo states that this is a messy way to handle it. lt is better to keep the fees as they are. Councilor Watson-Felt states that she and Councilor Harvey were discussing what Councilor Morsillo just said. We can recommend all of the edits with the exception of the fees, with the understanding that we can come back to the fees later She asks if we need to act on Councilor Harvey's motion to remove the fees section. Councilor Morsillo states that the motion was not seconded, and asks if anyone would like to second the motion. No one seconds. Councilor Watson-Felt then makes a motion to adopt the ordinance as amended with the exception of the fees which would rennain as is, with the idea that we will revisit. Councilor Morsillo recognizes that Mr. Kucharsky would like to address the committee and while he is moving to the mic, she asks how we intend to handle the seasonal permits. Mr. Kucharsky states that this is exactly what he wanted to say. We still have the seasonal permits, the non-resident permits, landlord permits, and student permits. Councilor Cohen says that Councilor Watson-Felt should remove her motion to raise the resident fee to S10 and the seasonal fee to 55, which was already seconded. Councilor Watson-Feh removes her motion. Councilor Cohen seconds and moves to amend the motion to accept the seasonal permit paragraph with a fee of 55 so that we can establish the seasonal resident parking. Councilor Morsillo clarifies that the motion is to revert to the existing fees for resident parking of 55 with a StO and S20 visitor permit fees. The cost of a seasonal permit is 55 and the visitor permits are S10 and S20. So there is no difference in the fees between the two types of permits, only the time of enforcement. Councilor Watson-Felt starts to add the non-resident parking permit fee, but Councilor Cohen objects to adding more to the motion at this point because the non-resident fees are a separate discussion. Councilor Watson-Felt agrees The motion is to keep the fees for resident parking as they are currently and to adopt the paragraph on seasonal resident parking with a fee of 55 and visitor passes at $10 and S2O made by Councilor Watson-Felt and seconded by Councilor Cohen. The motion carries 4-0. Councilor Morsillo moves on to residents who live part time in Salem with vehicles registered elsewhere. The proposed fee is $go. Councilor Cohen asks for clarification on what constitutes part-time. Mr. Kucharsky explains that the majority of time it is people who own the home but the vehicle is registered elsewhere. Councilor Cohen moves to the landlord fee, and Councilor Morsillo asks that we stay on this one item. Councilor Watson-Felt moves to accept the S30 fee for permit issued to an individual who resides part-time and whose vehicle is registered elsewhere, seconded by Councilor Harvey. The matter carries 4-0. Councilor Cohen moves to the landlord perrnit. He strongly agrees with the fee of S50. Sometimes the landlord will come to the property and park in the driveway, making the resident park in the street putting the burden on the residents. Councilor Cohen moves to accept the fee of S50, seconded by Councilor Watson-Felt. The motion carries 4-0. Councilor Watson-Felt thinks that increasing the resident fee for college students is unfair if we are not increasing the fee for residents. She moves to keep the resident parking fee for students at S10, seconded by Councilor Harvey. The motion passes 3-1. Councilor Morsillo asks for a motion to accept all of the other amendments about the new zones and the list of streets. Councilor Cohen moves to refer the ordinance to the full Council as amended for first passage, seconded by Councilor Harvey. The motion passes 4-0. The committee moves on to the October Resident Parking (Section 75A) Mr. Kucharsky shares a small amendment to the ordinance related to language changes to support the new parking system (changing sticker to permit). Councilor Morsillo clarifies that this language is to reflect the fact that thls is to change to the online system, Mr. Kucharsky confirms. Councilor Watson-Felt moves to accept the amendment, seconded by Councilor Harvey. The motion passes 44. Councilor Morsillo moves to the fees. Residents permits in October are free, with a visitor pass priced at S30. Councilor Harvey ask if this is in addition to the permits they already have. Mr. Kucharsky explains that this is only streets that do not already have resident only parking that are affected by the increased tourism in October. They receive resident parking for the month of October only for free. Councilor Morsillo also clarifies that the parking is enforced only at night. Mr. Kucharsky further clarifies that enforcement is from 5PM to 7AM and Saturdays and Sundays from Noon to 7AM. Councilor Cohen asked for clarification on visitor passes, which he thought were not given to October parking residents. Mr. Kucharsky states that in 2AL9 a Councilor asked for visitor passes, which were given for free. Councilor Morsillo states that she think that pricing visitor passes at S30 is out of line when we are only charging $10 to year- round residents. Councilor Cohen moves to make the October resident visitor pass S10, seconded by Councilor Harvey. The motion passes 4-0. Mr. Kucharsky points out that there is also a change to the cost for home healthcare and businesses requiring October resident parking. Councilor Harvey moves to strike the fee for home healthcare workers and business owners, seconded by Councilor Watson- Felt. The motion carries 40-0. Councilor Haruey moves to accept the rest of the text changes, seconded by Councilor Cohen. The motion passes 4-0. On the motion of Councilor Harvey the meeting adjourned at 8:02 P.M. L xh (Chairperson)