IBJNews

New parking meter plan could yield Indianapolis more cash

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Recent changes to the city’s plan to lease its parking meters for 50 years offer a trade-off—the impact of which will depend on whether people continue to park at meters in downtown and Broad Ripple.

If they do in strong numbers, meter revenue will jump, and the city stands to reap a bigger share of the money than under the original lease rolled out in August. If they don’t and revenue lags, the city will get a less lucrative deal than under the initial proposal, which calls for a bigger upfront payment than the revised one.

Money from the deal will be used mostly on street and sidewalk improvements in areas near the meters.

City leaders introduced the revisions Oct. 20 after public outcry over the original plan to lease the roughly 3,650 metered spaces to Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services Inc. The changes call for greater flexibility in removing meters, options to terminate the 50-year deal every 10 years with penalties, and more favorable terms for the city regarding advertising revenue from the meters.

Among the key differences is how the city would reap revenue. Under the initial plan, Indianapolis would have received $35 million upfront and, according to city estimates, $232.8 million in meter revenue over the life of the deal.

The new contract calls for the city to get $20 million upfront and an estimated $363.2 million over the next 50 years.

The higher share over time is based on a change in the revenue-sharing model, which, under the revised terms, gives the city 30 percent of revenue up to $7 million, and 60 percent above that threshold. That’s compared with 20 percent up to $8.4 million and 55 percent above that amount under the old deal.

That means, according to the city’s calculations using an 8-percent discount rate, the old deal would be worth $67 million today, compared with $73 million for the new deal.

But whether the city hits those projections—and whether the new deal turns out to be better, revenue-wise–depends on future meter payments.

“If traffic utilization turns out to be really good, the new scenario is going to be better,” said Sreenivas Kamma, who has studied public-private partnerships as chairman of the finance department at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. “If traffic utilization turns out to be less than expected, you’d prefer the original scenario.”

City officials say their revenue projections, which are based on estimates by financial advisers at New York-based investment bank Morgan Stanley, are conservative. By comparison, ACS projects much higher returns for the city of $400 million under the original plan and $620 million under the revised one.

The ability to increase revenue from the roughly $1 million per year the city currently reaps to as much as $15 million by the end of the contract depends on several factors, said Kurt Fullbeck, a project manager with the Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, who has worked on the financials of the parking deal.
Table comparing the intial and the revised meter deals
Among the factors is adding meters in areas such as Massachusetts Avenue downtown and on Westfield Boulevard in Broad Ripple. Increasing hourly rates from the current 75 cents to $1.50 by 2012 in high-traffic areas and making it easier to pay by installing machines that accept credit cards also are expected to help.

“Indianapolis is poised to expand even more, and with that will come greater need for parking meters in areas that may not be a commercial hub now but will be in the future,” Fullbeck said.

But there are tricky variables involved. Changes in mass transit could decrease the need for downtown parking. For now, raising rates during a tough economic time also could curb usage.

“Whenever you’re estimating in the future, it’s more risk than money today,” said Rachel Smith, a finance professor at the University of Indianapolis. “[But] generally parking meters are a pretty stable investment.”

The city’s Department of Public Works Board approved the changes 5-0 last week. A City-County Council committee will review the revisions at a meeting Nov. 9.

The plan requires approval by the full council.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.

ADVERTISEMENT