SR-417-009
GS:SS:dd f' ~ I 4/1---C?/f
Councll Meeting arch 23, 1982
.
11- G
Santa Monlca, Callfornia
MAR 2 3 1982
TO: Mayor and Clty Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: C1V1C Center/Civic AudltorlUffi Park~ng Proposal
Introduct~on
The City has been studying changes 1n the ex~st~ng court/
auditor~um parklng operation since well before the expirat10n of
the flve-year agreement w~th the County in November of 1980,
which provided for juror parklng at $10.00 per month per space.
The addition of three new court rooms to the exist~ng County
facilities w1th the attendant ~ncreased park~ng burden has made
thls the ldeal tlme for inltlatlng policy changes. ThlS report
makes new POllCY recommendations and requests City Councll action
to begin lmplementatlon of the proposed changes.
Background
Although the County has leased 135 spaces ln the C1V1C Aud1torlUffi
park~ng lot for juror parklng at the rate of $10.00 per month
since 1975, they have provlded for no employee parklng (except
for 18 judges) or public parklng other than that available 1n
the City lot ~mmed1ately adjacent to the County Building for
which the Clty has made no charge. The CiV1C Auditorium for many
years operated this lot after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and on week-
ends to prov~de parklng for AuditorlUffi events. The lot is used
by high school students and other members of the public in
addltlon to court employees and users.
In the Flscal Year 1981-82 budget, CounCll approved funds in the
amount of $100,000 to provide for the combln~ng of the Clvic Center
Parking lot used by the County and the adjacent C~V1C Auditor~um
parking lots to provlde 59 additlonal spaces and to enable the
Clty to take over full-tlme operatlon of the comb~ned lots by
the Civic Auditorium. Th~s wll1 provide much needed additlonal
park~ng for the Court.
When the proJect was budgeted, it was ant~cipated that the
cost Il- C
. ~ ........-i1
Mf~;' 2 _ lJe~
GS:SS:dd I
Council Meet~g rch 23, 1982
.
Santa Monica, Cal~forn~a
would be $200,000 and that the County would participate in one-
half of the cost to prov1de no cost park1ng for County for a
l~m1ted number of spaces for 3-5 years after Wh1Ch time the
County would pay the C1ty for employee and user park1ng--to cover
malntenance and operation costs. The current est1mate of cost
15 $270,000.
Staff has negotiated with the County on this 1ntermittently for
the past year and recently has made some progress, although much
work rema1ns. Staff proposes two alternat~ves:
1. Authorize Clty Manager to offer 300 parklng spaces to
County at no cost for 3 years ~f County partlclpates
In 50% of project cost. The estimated cost to the County
is $135,000. Th1S w1l1 result in a per space cost
of $12.50jmonth, Wh1Ch staff belleves is a very
reasonable amount. Juror parklng w111 stl1l be paid by the
County at the rate of $15.00jmonth. All other users
will be charged as follows:
Permittees - $15.00jmonth
Hourly parkers - 509jhour to $3.00 maximum
This alternative will result in lncreased annual revenue
to Clty of $145,400.
2. In the event the County does not participate in sharing
the project cost, authorlze staff to charge all users.
This alternative wl1l result ln lncreased annual revenue
to City of $154,400.
Recommendatlon
It 1S recommended that Clty Council authorize the C~ty Manager
to negotlate Alternatlve 1 with the County. If negot~at~ons
are not successful, the staff will propose funding in the 1982-83
budget.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
Gary Ferguson
-2-
11 C (What \lJa~. ~he....'11o.?) .
eM Reed: I w111 move that the staff be authorlzed to negotiate alternative one
wlth the County, and in addltlon to lnvestlgate the sltuation as Ms. Press has
outllned her concerns with the Hlgh School students, and further to fOllow up on
the Mayor's recommendatlons with regard to the nelghborhood. (She suggested that
the nelghborhood be mon1tored.) Second: Press.