By Dee Longfellow
At the recent meeting of the Elmhurst City Council, a committee report from the Finance, Council Affairs and Administrative Services (FCAAS) Committee was discussed recommending changes to the City’s parking fee structure.
Committee Chair Alderman Noel Talluto (4th Ward) introduced the measure to the Council, noting that paid parking in downtown Elmhurst (such as meters) was not under consideration at this time.
“In our 2024 budget, we accepted a recommendation from City staff to address and review the parking system because the General Fund has been subsidizing the parking system for a number of years and that really is not a sustainable financial situation,” Talluto said. “In the 2024 budget, it does not anticipate that the General Fund would be providing that ongoing assistance it in the future, so if we don’t take action, we would have to go back and look at the General Fund and either cut expenses or perhaps raise revenues. So there is an impetus to take a look at this problem now.”
Talluto explained that the parking fund is considered an enterprise fund, which means the municipality expects the fund to cover its own expenses through its fees. However, with the change in the number of commuters over the past few years, the parking fund has not been generating the revenues it needs to cover the expenses of maintenance and debt service obligations, she said.
There was one line item in expenses that the Committee felt could be eliminated.
“We decided not to fill the second parking enforcement position,” she said. “We’ve been relying on one enforcement officer and we have raised $300,000 in revenue coming from enforcement.
“We felt we weren’t going to get enough extra revenue, certainly not another $300,000, just by hiring another enforcement officer. It doesn’t eliminate an active employee, we’re just not filling a position that we already had in the budget.”
Talluto went on to say the committee considered two major stakeholders in parking in the city – 1) commuters who live here or come here to park and take the train; and 2) residents and users of our business district – shoppers, employees, etc.
“Those two stakeholder groups should share the costs,” she said, “We thought our recommendation should reflect that.
“We analyzed a number of revenue areas, we considered a property tax increase to cover that second stakeholder group, we talked about increasing the contribution from the Capital Improvement Fund to help cover some of the debt service, we talked about using TIF funds, as many of our parking decks lies within the TIF, and we talked about parking rates.
“The proposal sets out the parking rates to address the commuters’ portion to pay for the increased cost as well as a recommendation to tighten our belts for the TIF funds, such that we can use those additional funds within the TIF to cover the other component, that is, the other stakeholder group.
“We did not want to increase property tax, we feel strongly that we want to reserve the tax levy for unknown emergencies and for increases in our pension obligations, because the more we put on the tax levy, the less flexibility the levy has.”
Talluto said the Capital Improvement Fund already provides $900,000 year to the parking system and if those funds were used, other projects that are in the Capital Plan would have to be cut, such as the street resurfacing programs.
The Committee also felt the TIF would going to be minimally impacted, so it should not keep downtown businesses from flourishing.
“As to reducing the streetscape budget in the TIF, we can make our garbage cans last a little longer and our park benches last a little longer,” she said. “When we do the $8 million improvement using the downtown TIF, maybe we could find a little wiggle room if we have some needs for the streetscape.”
Other aldermen weigh in
When the floor was open for discussion, Ald. Mike Brennan (7th Ward) said he was a commuter two to three days a week to downtown Chicago and, in comparison to others he has talked with downtown, Brennan feels quite blessed at the parking situation in Elmhurst in its support of commuter travel.
“And for 14 years, it’s been $2,” he said. “It’s very reasonable, if you factor in inflation over 14 years. An increase of a dollar seems more than fair to me.
“The other thing is, I don’t think commuters should bear the full brunt of the cost, so I was glad to see the balance and the very thoughtful approach that the Committee took toward the problem. I agree with the decisions that were made across the board in the report. I really do appreciate the lengthy discussion that must have occurred.”
Ald. Marti Deuter (1st Ward) appreciated the work of the committee and staff, but she believed it was a big parking increase coming on top of a recent water rate increase.
“It might be too much for residents,” she said. “I feel it relies too heavily on commuters and ultimately, we want more commuters parking in Elmhurst and I fear the rate increases will have the opposite effect. My preference is to continue to cover it with the Capital Improvement Fund.
“If a parking fee increase is the only way, then I’d like to see it phased in over time.”
Ald. Jacob Hill (2nd Ward) spoke next.
“The one thing the committee report is missing is usage and I know that’s kind of hard to understand because we don’t have a way to track the total use of the parking decks. I know we have the permits are applied for and the money we receive.
“What I’m wondering is, do we have too much parking? It seems like the trends are going in a different direction. Do we have underutilized parking in Elmhurst? I wish I had a sense of that. I can’t tell you what it looks like because we don’t keep track of usage. I don’t think it’s a discussion for today, but at some time, we should ask if we are using the parking structures that we have. Do we need the infrastructure we have?”
The measure passed 11-1 with two persons absent.
