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.•


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now