About 80 downtown business owners and employees have signed a petition urging Republican Mayor Greg Ballard’s administration to nix major plans to revamp metered parking in Indianapolis.
Zach Adamson, who owns the salon Just Hair near Ohio and Pennsylvania streets, circulated the petition among establishments mainly on the east side of downtown. Adamson plans to run for City-County Council in 2011 as a Democrat.
He and other signatories are concerned about the city’s 50-year lease of the meters, which would double hourly rates from 75 cents to $1.50 by 2012 at meters in Broad Ripple and busy downtown areas.
It also would add Saturday hours and extend hours into the evening in those areas.
The city’s share of the revenue from the lease—expected to be more than $400 million—would go toward improving roads and sidewalks in the areas near the meters and possibly adding a parking garage in Broad Ripple. Affiliated Computer Services Inc., the Dallas-based company leasing the meters, also would put in high-tech meters that accept credit cards.
Among the roughly 135 people who signed the petition are local Democratic Party officials and candidates, but several others are employees and owners of businesses such as salons, gift shops, printing shops and food vendors at Indianapolis City Market.
Many say they worry that the higher rates and longer hours—until 11 p.m. in Broad Ripple and 9 p.m. in bustling downtown areas—would deter people from parking in those parts of the city.
“Downtown is fragile still,” said Ross Whitfield, who owns an insurance agency on Massachusetts Avenue and signed the petition. “We don’t need that if we’re competing with other satellite cities. They don’t have a parking issue. Why do we want to create a parking issue?”
But city officials say they think the new setup will help businesses. They say higher rates will persuade more people to use the meters for short-term purposes, creating turnover and opening up spaces for patrons.
They also point out that meter rates haven’t been increased in decades, and the $1.50 hourly rate would put Indianapolis on par with other comparably sized cities.
“The tradeoff is this—if you want increased on-street turnover and the ability to use credit and debit cards at the meters, the city has got to find a way to pay for that somehow,” said Michael Huber, the city’s deputy mayor for economic development. “The technology is old, and we’ve had the same rates for 35 years.”
Huber and representatives from downtown booster group Indianapolis Downtown Inc. have been in contact for several months with groups such as the Massachusetts Avenue Merchants Association and the Greater Indianapolis Hotel & Lodging Association. Fred Laughlin, vice president of management services for IDI, said members have been accepting of the changes.
David Andrichik, owner of the Chatterbox Tavern, said he’s supportive of the proposal because he sees a need for turnover outside of his Mass Ave establishment, where some cars occupy spaces all weekend because they don’t have to pay.
“The biggest concern is those who aren’t our customers occupying the spaces when they shouldn’t be occupying the spaces,” Andrichik said.
Andrichik also would welcome the additional money for road and sidewalk improvements, from which he and other Mass Ave merchants will benefit.
Adamson said he’d like to see those things, as well, but not to the detriment of his business.
“This is absolutely the worst time to raise the rates, in the middle of a recession,” Adamson said. “We’re counting every customer who comes in. Adding more [expense] is going to be a message to people to not come downtown.”
The City-County Council will determine whether to approve the parking proposal. A council committee hearing on the issue scheduled for Monday has been postponed, Huber said, to thoroughly vet public questions.
Council leaders say they’ve haven’t rescheduled the hearing, but it will be after the next full council meeting on Sept. 20.

















IBJ Conversations
29 Comments
Add Comment
"The SEC's complaint, filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., alleges that from 1995 to 2006, ACS engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive scheme to provide executives and other employees with undisclosed compensation."
Above is a part of a recent into ACS.
Seriously folks let's get real.
Public officials are supposed to be trustees of the commonweal, not political
buccaneers seeking their own private gain. But sometimes, in what economists call a
principal-agent problem, those trustees forsake that obligation and misuse the power
delegated to them in ways that advance their personal interests rather than those of the
public.
Corruption distorts the allocation of resources toward projects that
can generate illicit payoffs. Besides the undesirable efficiency consequences arising
from this distortion, the effect is likely to aggravate social inequalities, because the poor and powerless suffer, by definition, a comparative disadvantage in securing special favors.
If the $500,000 has to be paid if the City-County Council will not vote for the ACS deal. Pay ACS's political blackmail scheme and get them out of town. Like all the other commentaries together with articles I've been reading have showed, ACS is not the kind of corporation we want in our town. Political blackmail, special interests, conflict of interests, WHERES THE FBI? WHERES THE FEDS?
Has anyone ever read ACS Ethical Standards they try to impose on their employees at the welfare office. Their employees aren't allowed to accept even a Christmas card. Yet the CEO's and Directors of this company have done just that.
ACS is a shameful, unethical, disgraceful hypocrite, not to mention the so called "leaders" of Indianapolis for creating this mess.
What an embarrassment to our city.
Second, it is complete baloney for you to claim that there is free parking--anywhere. There is no such thing as free parking. When a private business provides "free parking," you pay for it through the prices the business charges you for their goods and services because the parking costs the business money to provide. Similarly, when the city provides street parking, it costs money for the city to provide the parking spot through the cost of parking enforcement and street maintenance. So, either everyone can subsidize the cost through higher taxes, or the process can be transparent and individuals can pay, if not the full cost, at least an amount closer to the true cost of providing the so-called "free parking."
Third, if someone is truly going to be dissuaded from going somewhere for two hours (e.g. for shopping or dinner) because instead of paying $1.50 for parking, they will have to pay $3 for parking, then their cheap butt should stay at home. Someone who is that price sensitive is not a high-value customer, and it doesn't make sense for the public to subsidize parking for them. If they won't spend $3 on parking, then they certainly aren't going to spend very much money on food, clothes, drinks, etc.
Finally, the real issue in this debate is not whether parking rates should be raised--that is a given, YES, they should be doubled, or even tripled. But, what is a legitimate matter of debate is whether the privatization plan makes any sense. The city has the ability to raise the parking rates on its own, and then issue bonds backed by the parking revenue to pay for the cost of installing electronic meters and to cover infrastructure improvements downtown and in Broad Ripple (where the meters are located). So, it begs the question, why bring in a middle-man to skim off revenue? What extra-value would ACS provide that the city cannot simply get by keeping all the parking revenue for itself and using bonds backed by the revenue to pay for infrastructure improvements. Unlike ACS, the city has a very good bond rating, so it costs relatively little for it to borrow money. Also, unlike ACS, the city doesn't pay state or federal taxes, so the city avoids a huge operating expense that ACS would have to deal with. Meanwhile, ACS must charge a higher rate under the contract to cover its tax expense. Additionally, ACS really isn't bringing any value to the table-it's not claiming the contract will lower parking operations cost, in fact, the agreement assumes costs will go up. To date,the Ballard administration has not been able to explain what ACS can do that the city cannot do on its own, and do more cheaply.
Now, as it pertains to the article at hand, Andrichik is absolutely correct in his assessment that the fare increase would be a good thing for downtown merchants. I know first hand from years of living downtown in general and the Mass Ave area in particular that some people DO take complete advantage of the free parking on the weekends and treat those spaces as their own personal spots. And parking in the Mass Ave are is definitely NOT always so easy, especially when there is an event at the Murat or the , is a Athaneum. Adamson, I'm afraid, is a little naive in his thinking. Anyone who has traveled to similarly sized cities will tell you that parking in downtown Indy is a bargain and a breeze and even an increase of 100% will only just bring us in line with comparably sized cities.
The idea that a 50-year lease with a company for charging rates that make the meters non-competitive in comparison to parking garages does seem ridiculous--a bonanza for the meter management company. Far better would be to expand the hours for the meters as is typical in most cities of Indy's size, and gradually increase meter prices as the market inflates the rates in the garages.
Basically--if someone else is making that much profit from our meters, with the city paying the upfront upgrade expenses, why doesn't the city just do the same thing?
1. The contract didn't say anything about upgrades
2. This is now a monopoly. You can't go to anyone else with your whining.
3. You have 40 years to go in a solid contract so shut up and pay.
Not good.
Well the GOP taxes at a higher rate than Democrates ever did. They just sell off the assets to private businesses (out of state/country) and they raise the heck out of the fees kicking a little back to the city. This is what that man Mitch did with the toll road. Wow. have you seen how much it has gone up at a time when people's income has been drastically slashed?
The notion of selling off and entering into special sweetheart deals with the private sector is just outrageous. GOP says everything should be ran by a business (believing they can do it cheaper). Well if businesses thought that there would not be huge profits, they would never seek these special sweetheart deals. Makes you wonder why the GOP wants the government to have less funds to support essential services? Makes not sense to any reasonable person.
Call it whatever you want, it is just TAXATION without having any REPRESENTATION once the sweetheart deal goes through.
I would like to see the convenience of having meters that allow credit card purchases. However, I don't believe the city should be entering into a 50 year contract. Technology changes so quickly and a contract should not exist for that long. In addition, I would like to see a gradual implementation and to see a consistent time frame. There is no need for different hours at different locations in the city - make it the same.
The city has enough good people to manage, maintain and monitor a project such as this to move Indy into the future where parking is concerned. My fear is that the "50 year" monies brought in to fix streets right now will not be there in 5 to 10 years to start updating infrastructure again. Let's do it gradually when the funds are there from increased rates and extended hours on meters.
Hope your listening Mayor. I really like the job your doing, but you might want to give this a little more thought. There is nothing wrong with using the increased revenue to buy a lot of cashless meters at a time.
http://praiseindy.com/audio/amosbrown/urban-expert-rates-indys-parking-meter-deal-worst-in-country/
If every place where the meter zones are located had an alternative like they have at Circle Center Mall, that would drive people in droves into the garages. Alternatives need to be in place BEFORE the rate/hours increases go into effect. That is the only thing that will achieve both goals of the deal AND not negatively impact business in these zones.
There is still a question of whether or not the city is getting the best deal it can from this. It seems to me that all the revenue generating that goes beyond what we collect currently is tied up in the new meter itself and not the management.