Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Parking Tax Pandering Misplaced
Count the PG editorial board as the latest voice in a chorus demanding that parking lot and garage operators roll back their rates to coincide with the phase down of the parking tax from its present 50 percent rate to 45 percent on January 1, 2007. It is the first step of a state mandated multi-year reduction that will end in 2010 when the rate reaches 35 percent.
We noted in a recent report on the City’s budget that we would not expect the five percent reduction to reap any savings for those who park in the City. And those that are pushing for the rate rollback are failing to note that the costs of lot and garage operators have gone up since 2004, meaning that they are not unfairly pocketing the dollars as opponents believe.
There are two methods of recourse for the City. One was pointed out in the editorial: the City’s Public Parking Authority controls a good deal of parking in the City. The board of directors are appointed by the Mayor and serve at will. If they do not agree to lower the rates, the Mayor can ask for their resignations and appoint people who will lower the rates. That seems unlikely and the executive director of the Authority has already stated that “as of now, we don't anticipate lowering rates”.
Second, the law creating the payroll tax and fixing the rates of the parking tax and its phase down states that in 2007 the “rate of the tax shall not exceed 45%” (italics added). The same holds for 2008 through 2010. If City Council and the Mayor are really interested in helping those who park, why don’t they bite the bullet and lower the rate to 35 percent next year? The City is budgeting $47 million from the 45 percent tax next year, and $38 million in 2010 when the rate will be 35 percent, meaning the reduction will cost $9 million over the next three years.
After all, who needs the parking tax revenues more, the City or the folks parking in the City? According to the logic of the PG, the parkers deserve it. So let’s see if the City can save $9 million from its $420 million budget and return it to the parking customers.
We noted in a recent report on the City’s budget that we would not expect the five percent reduction to reap any savings for those who park in the City. And those that are pushing for the rate rollback are failing to note that the costs of lot and garage operators have gone up since 2004, meaning that they are not unfairly pocketing the dollars as opponents believe.
There are two methods of recourse for the City. One was pointed out in the editorial: the City’s Public Parking Authority controls a good deal of parking in the City. The board of directors are appointed by the Mayor and serve at will. If they do not agree to lower the rates, the Mayor can ask for their resignations and appoint people who will lower the rates. That seems unlikely and the executive director of the Authority has already stated that “as of now, we don't anticipate lowering rates”.
Second, the law creating the payroll tax and fixing the rates of the parking tax and its phase down states that in 2007 the “rate of the tax shall not exceed 45%” (italics added). The same holds for 2008 through 2010. If City Council and the Mayor are really interested in helping those who park, why don’t they bite the bullet and lower the rate to 35 percent next year? The City is budgeting $47 million from the 45 percent tax next year, and $38 million in 2010 when the rate will be 35 percent, meaning the reduction will cost $9 million over the next three years.
After all, who needs the parking tax revenues more, the City or the folks parking in the City? According to the logic of the PG, the parkers deserve it. So let’s see if the City can save $9 million from its $420 million budget and return it to the parking customers.
