Loading...
CC 05-14-2024 Item No. 2 FY 2024-25 Fee Schedule_Written CommunicationsWritten Communications CC 05-14-2024 Item No. 2 FY 2024-25 Fee Schedule From:Ted B To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:5/14/2024 City Council Meeting, Agenda item 2--New Parking Permit Fee Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 2:11:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino City Council: May 14, 2024 I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recent proposal, (being considered, on Agenda Item #2 for May 14th) to implement charges for permit parking in our city, for the years beyond 2023-2024 years. Permit parking has been a long-standing benefit for city residents, to help directly manage parking in areas that the city has struggled with doing so on their own, in the past. Introducing fees for this service would place an undue financial burden on many individuals and families in our community. Here are several reasons why I believe charging for permit parking is not in the best interest of our city: 1. Community Accessibility: Permit parking ensures that residents have convenient access to parking spaces near their homes. Introducing fees could limit this accessibility and create additional challenges for those who rely on street parking. 2. Financial Impact: Many residents already face financial challenges, and adding permit parking fees would further strain their budgets. This is especially concerning for low-income families and individuals on fixed incomes. 3. Equity and Fairness: Charging for permit parking may disproportionately affect certain neighborhoods or demographics within our city. It's crucial to consider the equity implications of such a policy change. 4. Community Engagement: The decision to implement permit parking charges should involve extensive input and feedback from residents. Transparent and inclusive decision- making processes are essential for building trust and support within our community. I urge you to reconsider the proposal to charge for permit parking and explore alternative solutions that promote equitable access to parking while addressing the city's needs. Collaborative efforts between residents and local government can lead to better outcomes for all stakeholders. At a minimum, Please strongly consider the financial impact for those on a fixed income and have those individuals assessed ZERO fees. (We have enough financial obligations to manage already!) Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to a constructive dialogue on this important issue. Ted Biskupski 10685 Randy Ln Cupertino, CA 95014 From:Christine P. VanHoy To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:Chris VanHoy Subject:NO FEES for parking permits Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 12:03:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. These parking permits are not a luxury thing, they are there to protect the neighborhood from random people parking on our street and being there all day, often times blocking driveways, and keeping the people who live on the street from being able to use their own parking area in front of their houses. NO FEES FOR PARKING PERMITS! Christine 10556 Larry Way Cupertino, CA 95014 ==== Christine P. VanHoy Look inside, and be an Everyday Hero! From:Rhoda Fry To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:Cupertino City Council 5/14/2023 - Agenda Item #2 regarding fees Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:09:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, Regarding Fee Increases. Parking Permit Fees: I am against this because it is not fair to the residents. Most residents get these permits due to external forces beyond their control. For example, Apple employees had started parking in the neighborhoods instead of in Apple’s designated parking areas. Why should the residents shoulder the burden of something that they did not create? Let’s say that the neighbors of the Tesselations School, which is leasing the Regnart School site, decide that they need to have permit parking? Again, not a problem that the residents created. It is not fair. I do not have a parking permit and don’t expect to get one. I am writing because this is a fairness issue. So please strike this one. AND . . . guess what? Tesselations does not appear to have a business license, and that would help defray the cost of parking permits, if needed. There would be a nexus there. More on business licenses to follow. Credit Card Fees: Please take a look at the proposed 3.4% fee and make sure that it is fair. Please keep in mind that there needs to be a nexus for a fee. If not, you are implementing a tax and taxes need to be voted on by your constituents (those are the people who voted for you who used to be at the top of the org chart – but for reasons unknown are now missing). How was the 3.40% cost determined? What is the cost of processing ACH or paper checks? I think that the credit card fee should be the actual cost minus the ACH/paper check cost. I do a lot of credit card transactions with many Bay Area cities and I have never seen a rate this high. I do not want the City of Cupertino to get into trouble for charging too much. Business Licenses: I see that there is an increase for the “Small Income Business License.” I don’t see this listed on the fee schedule https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31179/638312344476270000 Is this different from a business license? Please get Cupertino Businesses to pay their business license taxes! That will help the budget. Businesses in Cupertino are not paying their fair share in business licenses (and btw, a business license is a tax). There are many businesses that are not licensed. I have been asking for years that the City go to businesses and get them licensed. Private schools are supposed to pay $342 per year. It doesn’t look like Tesselations has a business license. See here: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31857/638499998265000000 But there’s a lot more. What about the companies that do business for the City of Cupertino? I started looking through companies that the City has recent contracts with and do not see them as having business licenses: Ginger Tsun, National Academy of Athletics, Futsal, 4Leaf, San Jose Conservation Corps, Baker Tilly, Jones Enterprises, Musson Theatrical. By the way, I was glad to see that Done Right, which has done a number of roof/gutter contracts in Cupertino does have a business license. One thing that surprised me was that the roof replacement at McClellan Ranch’s 4H had been estimated by the City Survey to cost around $36K, not including gutters (that’s what my memory tells me) and the actual cost for roof and gutter was $11K. The estimates that the City has received seem to be inflated. Then I did a quick search on other types of businesses within the City, like bakeries. And again, many of them were not listed on the business tax database. Why? Please dedicate some staff time to get businesses licensed. And maybe you can even use some of that $50K contract with the Chamber of Commerce to get the business licenses up to date. That would also help the Chamber promote membership. Regards, Rhoda Fry Virus-free.www.avg.com From:ceaneff@comcast.net To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:City Attorney"s Office; Chad Mosley; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Proposed Permit Parking Fees Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 8:23:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I would appreciate it if Council would review and reject the proposed $40 parking permit fee staff proposes. Residential area permit parking is only necessary because of inadequate/inconvenient parking at Cupertino businesses; passing permit parking fees onto impacted residents adds insult to injury. I understand that the loss of Apple revenue is causing financial strain on City resources, however recovering lost Apple revenue from the residents who only need permit parking because of Apple employees refusing to park on Apple campuses would be an unforced policy error. From:lorraine eaneff To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Permit Parking Fees Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 7:52:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. After working for months, almost a year if I recall, Permit Parking was established on Larry Way. This was necessary to end the Apple Employees parking for the day on our street, which made school pickup at Lawson even more crazy, Driveways were often blocked during school pickup by parents thinking it would not matter. I personally had a conflict when telling a woman to move her car from a driveway one day. Mailboxes were blocked, as ours are on the curb, and mailmen could not reach the boxes to deliver the mail. With both Apple and the school as our neighbors, there were real issues. Permit parking has made our streets safer for those who choose to walk to and from school as there are fewer parked cars on the street to walk around, and allows the USPS to deliver mail to each residence. When our street applied for permit parking, there was a fee to request the permits, which was paid. There was no additional yearly fee in the agreement, which is what neighbors and the city agreed to when setting up the permits. Many of our homeowners are elderly, and especially considering that the city has not notified any of the residents that they are considering charging a fee for permit parking, I find this unacceptable. Why were residents not notified and allowed time to comment? Fees should be charged for new streets joining the permit parking when residents are told upfront that there will be a cost if that is deemed necessary, but going back and changing the structure after the fact is wrong and unfair, and should not be considered. If the cost is so high to reissue the stickers, other options can be considered such as making the stickers good for longer than 2 years. The signs were placed years ago, so the costs to maintain permit parking on Larry is quite low, and should not require each household to pay to park on their own street. Lorraine Eaneff 10698 Larry Way since 1985.