On the agenda: San Marcos meeting — License Plate Recognition (Jun 15)

City of San Marcos
Regular Meeting
Parking Advisory Board
June 15th, 2026, 6:00 pm
City Hall: Conference Room
630 E. Hopkins Street
San Marcos, Texas 78666
Please click the link below to join the meeting:
https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/241090626501431?p=vIRjC4Jcoo5jjMaxcv
Meeting ID: 241 090 626 501 431
Passcode: 2cH6jH7q
The presiding officer for this meeting will be present at the meeting location described above.

I.

Call To Order

II.

Roll Call

III.

Citizen Comment Period:
Persons wishing to participate (speak) during the Citizen Comment portion of the meeting must
email [email protected] prior to 12:00PM the day of the meeting. A call-in number to join by
phone or link to join by a mobile device, laptop or desktop computer will be provided for
participation.
MINUTES
1. Consider, by motion, the approval of regular meeting minutes:
a. May 18, 2026
REPORT ITEMS
1. Board questions, if any, regarding the monthly reports from enforcement
2. Present the updated Parking Income Statement
3. Receive an update on flyer to help educate new Texas State students on Downtown
Parking
4. Receive an update on the City Park Paid Parking Pilot Program
DISCUSSION ITEM
5. Discuss staff and Parking Advisory Board members presenting to outside stakeholders to
get feedback on a Downtown Parking Benefit District recommendation

ACTION ITEMS
6. Discuss and consider by motion the approval of a Recommendation Resolution for the
Downtown San Marcos Parking Analysis and Parking Benefit District Recommendation
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
1. Board Members may provide requests for discussion items for a future agenda in accordance
with the board’s approved bylaws. No further discussion will be held related to topics proposed
until they are posted on a future agenda in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act.

IV.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH PRESS AND PUBLIC. This is an opportunity
for the Press and Public to ask questions related to items on this agenda.

V.

ADJOURNMENT

Notice of Assistance at the Public Meetings
The City of San Marcos is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act.
Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. If
requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48
hours) before the meeting date. Individuals who require auxiliary aids and services for this meeting
should contact the City of San Marcos ADA Coordinator at 512-393-8000 (voice) or call Texas Relay
Service (TRS) by dialing 7-1-1. Requests can also be faxed to 855-461-6674 or sent by e-mail to
[email protected].
For more information
[email protected]

on

the

Parking

Advisory

Board

please

contact

Amy

Finn

at

PARKING ADVISORY BOARD

MEETING MINUTES
May 18th, 2026

PARKING ADVISORY BOARD
MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
May 18th, 2026

The Parking Advisory Board convened a regular meeting via Teams online format and in-person on
May 18th, 2026.
I.

Chair, John David Carson called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm.

II.

Board Members in Attendance:
Chair John David Carson
Dr. Rosalie Ray
Ida Miller
Alana Rosenwasser
Gabrielle Moore
Jovan Marin
Council Member, Mendoza
Mayor Jane Hughson
Staff Present
Assistant Director of Public Works, Pete Binion
Transit Manager, Amy Finn
Downtown Manager, Josie Falletta
Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, Jessica Ramos
Iris Castro, Senior Adm Assistant
City Marshal, Tiffany Williams
Parking Coordinator, Marissa Roldan

III.

CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD
There were no citizen comments

MINUTES
1. Consider, by motion, the approval of regular meeting minutes:
a. April 20th , 2026
A motion was made by Jovan Marin and seconded by Dr. Ray to approve and amend the
April 20th meeting minutes noting Chair John David Carson’s comment on section 5
seconded by Dr. Ray.
The motion was carried by the following vote:

1

PARKING ADVISORY BOARD
For:

6-

Absent

0-

MEETING MINUTES
May 18th, 2026
Chair John David Carson, Vice Chair Dr.
Rosalie Ray, Jovan Marin, Ida Miller, Alana
Rosenwasser, Gabrielle Moore.

PRESENTATION ITEMS
1. Presentation from Parking Enforcement on process leading to immobilization of
vehicles
a. Staff presented presentation highlighting the current points of contact in
the parking enforcement process.
i. Citation 1: Placed on windshield under the driver side wiper
blade (Staff indicated this will be recorded by bodycam).
AND
Letter 1: Auto generated and sent on the 31st day after Citation 1
was issued (if no contact is made and tracked through IPS).
ii.

After 3 or more citations have been issued, and no contact has
been made on any citation, that vehicle receives a First Notice
sticker on the driver side window indicating immobilization
eligibility.
iii. If contact with Municipal Court is made, or a return to sender
notice is received, immobilization is put on hold. Payment plans,
continuing education, and community service are also offered as
options to address citations under judicial purview.
b. Staff proposed changes to the current points of contact in the parking
enforcement process including collections considerations.
i.
Staff proposed expanding the 10-day period listed on the initial
citation through board guidance.
c. Board Chair requested that staff investigate Scofflaw program in relation
to unpaid civil citations in comparison to collections.
REPORT ITEMS
2. Board questions, if any, regarding the monthly reports from enforcement
a. Presented reports that were provided within the Agenda Packet
b. Board requested staff provide the correlation total data of collection
rates by month.
3. Receive an update on items previously requested from the Communications
Department
a. In reference to the flyer to be posted in student dorms and facilities this
fall, staff indicated that there is a goal to provide the board with a draft
flyer by next month.
4. Receive an update on the City Park Paid Parking Pilot Program
a. Staff reported that summer operations have begun and an uptick in parking
is anticipated.
2

PARKING ADVISORY BOARD

MEETING MINUTES
May 18th, 2026

b. Staff indicated that year to date $334,010 has been collected from the lot
including fees and fines.
5. Discussion on the Downtown Paid Parking Research Committee recommendation and
consideration of a recommendation resolution of a Downtown Parking Benefit District
from the full board at a future meeting
a. Board indicated that an executive summary, description of projected
revenue and expenses, and an implementation timeline have been added to
the draft recommendation.
b. Board asked staff for clarification concerning the validity of the
assumptions in the model of the number of people that are parking for
different measurements of time.
c. Board chair stated that this document will likely be considered by vote in
the next meeting.
6. Discuss staff and Parking Advisory Board members presenting to outside stakeholders
to get feedback on a Downtown Parking Benefit District recommendation
a. Chair suggested that outreach committee members schedule a meeting
with the staff liaison.
7. Discussion of proposed amendments to Chapter 82 of the City of San Marcos Code of
Ordinances to ensure all comments from the board were incorporated prior to
additional review.
a. Staff proposed that the proposed amendments be sent over to the legal and
municipal court for review.
b. Board requested that staff review comments and come back with
conclusion regarding the permitting process change involving the term
single family home.
8. Discussion on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking on N. LBJ drive
a. Downtown manager presented citizen request for additional ADA parking
space on N. LBJ drive.
b. Staff indicated that with the knowledge that the addition of 1 ADA
parking space would require 2-3 existing parking spaces to be converted
5/6 of the responding businesses along the block were against the
conversion.
c. Board requested that staff review the traffic signal timing of the
intersection of N LBJ Dr. and Hopkins St. to ensure that lead pedestrian
intervals are long enough in all directions to account for users that may
need more time to cross.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
1. Board Members may provide requests for discussion items for a future agenda in
accordance with the board’s approved bylaws. No further discussion will be held
related to topics proposed until they are posted on a future agenda in accordance with
the Texas Open Meetings Act.
QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
No questions from the press or public
3

PARKING ADVISORY BOARD

IV.

MEETING MINUTES
May 18th, 2026

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:13pm by Chair John David Carson

Staff Liaison

Board/Commission Chair

Notice of Assistance at the Public Meetings
The City of San Marcos does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to its
services, programs, or activities. Individuals who require auxiliary aids and services for this meeting should
contact the City of San Marcos ADA Coordinator at 512-393-8000 (voice) or call Texas Relay Service (TRS)
by dialing 7-1-1. Requests can also be faxed to 512-393-8074 or sent by e-mail to
[email protected]

4

Month
January '22
February '22
March '22
April '22
May '22
June '22
July '22
August '22
September '22
October '22
November '22
December '22
January '23
February '23
March '23
April '23
May '23
June '23
July '23
Aug '23
September '23
October '23
November '23
December '23
January '24
February '24
March '24
April '24
May '24
June '24
July '24
August '24
September '24
October '24
November '24
December '24
January '25
February '25
March '25
April 25'
May 25'
June 25'
July 25'
August 25'
September 25'
October 25'
November 25'
December 25'
January 26'
February 26'
March 26'
April 26'
May 26'

Number of Citations Paid

Downtown Parking Citations Issued and Paid
Citations Issued
Percent of citations issued that have been paid
441
42.63%
419
44.63%
588
42.18%
551
47.73%
749
42.32%
904
35.73%
909
32.67%
1012
47.13%
1420
39.08%
1033
50.44%
908
44.38%
903
42.64%
982
37.27%
671
39.79%
997
33.80%
1025
41.17%
994
39.74%
1084
31.73%
1037
36.45%
1090
46.33%
1048
50.48%
896
48.55%
777
46.59%
708
46.75%
854
46.37%
879
44.82%
669
57.25%
527
47.44%
372
53.49%
373
45.84%
461
57.05%
625
41.60%
777
48.78%
710
58.73%
610
60.49%
391
94.63%
383
68.41%
380
61.58%
311
89.71%
752
45.21%
518
75.48%
570
69.12%
554
68.23%
NuPark Data
0.00%
161
16.15%
1491
24.48%
748
53.21%
784
74.36%
670
65.37%
1092
47.89%
1014
65.19%
872
63.88%
857
61.84%

188
187
248
263
317
323
297
477
555
521
403
385
366
267
337
422
395
344
378
505
529
435
362
331
396
394
383
250
199
171
263
260
379
417
369
370
262
234
279
340
391
394
378
NuPark Data
26
365
398
583
438
523
661
557
530

2022
1400

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

1200

1000
800
600
400
200
0
January '22 February March '22 April '22
'22
Number of Citations Paid

May '22

June '22

July '22

Citations Issued

August '22 September October November December
'22
'22
'22
'22
Percent of citations issued that have been paid

2023
1400

100.00%

1200

80.00%

1000

800

60.00%

600

40.00%

400

20.00%

200
0

0.00%
January '23 February March '23 April '23
'23
Number of Citations Paid

May '23

June '23

July '23

Citations Issued

Aug '23 September October November December
'23
'23
'23
'23
Percent of citaitons issued that have been paid

2024
1400

100.00%

1200

80.00%

1000

800

60.00%

600

40.00%

400

20.00%

200
0

0.00%
January '24 February March '24 April '24
'24
Number of Citations Paid

May '24

June '24

July '24

Citations Issued

August '24 September October November December
'24
'24
'24
'24
Percent of citations issued that have been paid

2025-2026
100.00%
1400

90.00%

1200

80.00%

70.00%

1000

60.00%
800

50.00%

600

40.00%
30.00%

400

20.00%

200

10.00%

0

0.00%

Number of Citations Paid

Citations Issued

Percent of citations issued that have been paid

Violation Code

Violation Description

Count of Violation Code

201

201 - Parked Overtime

201 238

201 - Parked Overtime 238 - Double Parked

1

202

202 - Parked Blocking Bicycle Lane

1

203

203 - Parked in Fire Lane

4

203 240

203 - Parked in Fire Lane 240 - Parked in a Lane of Traffic

2

205

205 - Disabled Parking Violation

15

205 238

205 - Disabled Parking Violation 238 - Double Parked

1

206

206 - Travel Trailer Parked in Residential

1

209

209 - Parked Within 4' of a Mailbox

1

219

219 - Parked Within 30' of a Traffic Control Device

4

225

225 - Interfering with Enforcement

5

225 252

225 - Interfering with Enforcement 252 - Head-In into Back-In Angle Parking

230

230 - Parked in a No Parking Zone

116

233

233 - Parked Blocking Driveway

5

234

234 - Parked in Loading Zone

9

235

235 - No Parking Zone - RPP

14

236

236 - Wheels over 18" from Curb

4

236 202

236 - Wheels over 18" from Curb 202 - Parked Blocking Bicycle Lane

1

236 242

236 - Wheels over 18" from Curb 242 - Parked Left Side Street/Facing Traffic

1

237

237 - Parked Within 15' of Fire Hydrant

8

238

238 - Double Parked

29

239

239 - Parked Within 20' of Crosswalk

1

240

240 - Parked in a Lane of Traffic

18

240 203

240 - Parked in a Lane of Traffic 203 - Parked in Fire Lane

2

242

242 - Parked Left Side Street/Facing Traffic

27

242 209

242 - Parked Left Side Street/Facing Traffic 209 - Parked Within 4' of a Mailbox

1

242 219

242 - Parked Left Side Street/Facing Traffic 219 - Parked Within 30' of a Traffic Control Device

1

242 230

242 - Parked Left Side Street/Facing Traffic 230 - Parked in a No Parking Zone

1

242 233

242 - Parked Left Side Street/Facing Traffic 233 - Parked Blocking Driveway

1

242 237

242 - Parked Left Side Street/Facing Traffic 237 - Parked Within 15' of Fire Hydrant

1

243

243 - Parked on Grass

15

245

245 - Parked on Sidewalk

6

246

246 - Comm. Vehicle in Res. Area

2

251

251 - Backed Into Head-In Angled Parking

11

251 230

251 - Backed Into Head-In Angled Parking 230 - Parked in a No Parking Zone

1

252

252 - Head-In into Back-In Angle Parking

47

(blank)

(blank)

Grand Total

499

1

857

CITATIONS PAID BY MONTH
Total Citations
September 25'
October 25'
November 25'
December 25'
January 26'
February 26'
March 26'
April 26'
May 26'

Warnings and Aborted
161
1491
755
789
675
1092
1014
872
857
7706

Dismissed Citations
11
167
57
81
76
106
102
72
92
764

Voided Citations
3
42
17
16
9
8
16
14
11
136

Valid Citations
3
153
79
75
75
109
91
101
71
757

Citations Paid
144
1129
602
617
515
869
805
685
683
6049

122
791
398
432
330
567
478
342
180
3640

Citation Collection Rate
85%
70%
66%
70%
64%
65%
59%
50%
26%
62%

City of San Marcos Parking - Income Statement
Possible GL Code
Gen Fund - 44495
Downtown Impr - 44495
Gen Fund - 42010

Gen Fund - 41022
Org 12007217 See Schedule
10000000-44497

Operating Income
Off-street Parking Fees (Premium)
Off-street Parking Fees (Hutchison Lot)
Parking Enforcement Fines (42% Collection Rate)
Deliquency
Special Event Fees
Residential Parking Permits
City Park Paid Parking Pilot Program

6/30/2025
382
40,572

7/31/2025
234
2,090
39,760

8/31/2025
95
2,090
29,292

9/30/2025 10/31/2025 11/30/2025 12/31/2025
410
758
475
2,285
2,285
2,285
2,285
3,355
22,873
25,965
43,803

1/31/2026
361
2,285
31,938

2/28/2026
391
2,285
39,583

3/31/2026
661
2,285
55,090

165

(115)

25

45

13,707

13,878

4,578

6,551

1,529

56,690
2,209

42,886 $

51,141 $

41,135 $

43,788 $

116,935 $

5/31/2026 Total
607
5,151
1,810
24,270
46,795
428,980
120
28,351
3,522
128,807
2,209
81,368 $
52,735
589,537

41,119 $

41,969 $

31,502 $

6,095 $

38,865 $

1,500
676
15,915
-

1,500
883
16,949
28

1,500
1,054
251
15,020
16

1,500
698
17,760
11

1,500
613
21,491
2

1,500
844
184
15,877
63

1,500
708
925
13,127
11

1,500
546
(179)
13,091
-

1,500
557
14,643
12

1,500
760
15,906
37

1,500
1,200
45
15,468
2

1,500
1,098
87
23,086
2

13,197
3,996
361
562
38,086 $

48,686
68
242
72,602 $

408
361
19,238 $

16,271 $

14,958 $

120
415
17,247 $

9,000
149
411
27,763 $

309
18,525 $

10,583
36,357

18,000
9,638
1,313
198,333
186
90,264
5,301
1,924
1,531
326,489

239
195
19,795 $

10
181
18,032 $

22,174 $

13,470 $

(31,991) $

(33,737) $

23,648 $

34,870 $

26,177 $

26,541 $

89,173 $

62,843 $

16,378 $

263,048

TXST Football gameday paid parking

Other Operating Income
Total Operating Income

$

4/30/2026
776
2,285
49,955

Operating Expenses
Object-52111 Leased Vehicles/Enterprise
Note: This depr exp is estimated. Depr is
calculated at EOY
10002178-53040
10002178-53145
See Schedule
10002178-53105
Need GL-Ask if any to report
10002178-52395
See Schedule
10002178-52105
10002178-54180
10002178-53160

Depreciation Expense
Fuel (Enforcement)
Maintenance and Repairs
Personnel (Enforcement)
Postage
Signage
Software (NuPark)
Supplies
Telephone
Training
Uniforms
Total Operating Expense

$

8,798
726
27,615 $

Net Operating Income

$

13,504 $

$

-

Other Income
Object-22163
ex:If Developer only builds 75 parking space but
Land Dev Code requires 100

Parking Fee-in-Lieu
Total Other Income

0

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

0
$

-

$

-

0 $
$

-

Other Expense
10001280-54277, contract 222-135, LAZ
Parking invoices @ 312 E Hopkins
EE#14130, starting April-13096-pull gross
pay from FINAL Detail Proof

Employee Parking Program

550

658

586

80

1,585

732

732

626

626

626

602

-

7,402

Public Works Expense Allocation
Total Other Expense

$

7,794
8,344 $

7,794
8,451 $

7,794
8,380 $

7,794
7,874 $

11,894
13,479 $

8,282
9,014 $

8,026
8,758 $

8,028
8,654 $

8,028
8,654 $

8,028
8,654 $

7,154
7,756 $

11,793
11,793

102,408
109,810

Net Other Expense

$

(8,344) $

(8,451) $

(8,380) $

(7,874) $

(13,479) $

(9,014) $

(8,758) $

(8,654) $

(8,654) $

(8,654) $

(7,756) $

(11,793) $

(109,810)

Net Income

$

5,160 $ 13,722 $

5,090 $ (39,865) $ (47,216) $ 14,634 $ 26,112 $ 17,523 $ 17,887 $ 80,519 $ 55,087 $

4,585 $ 153,238

PARKING ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02RR-PAB
A RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION OF THE PARKING ADVISORY BOARD TO THE SAN MARCOS
CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE CREATION OF A DOWNTOWN PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT TO
INCLUDE ON-STREET PAID PARKING AFTER A PERIOD OF FREE PARKING TIME
WHEREAS, The Parking Advisory Board (the “Board”) is appointed to provide recommendations
regarding creation and operation of the parking and transportation demand management program;
WHEREAS, the Board previously passed and adopted Resolution No. 2023-03 in 2024 regarding a
recommendation to explore on-street paid parking implementation downtown that was subsequently
acknowledged and approved by City Council;
WHEREAS, the Board then formed a committee and worked alongside City parking staff for over two
(2) years to complete a detailed review of parking downtown and document its findings;
WHEREAS, despite improvements to enforcement and the provision of some 4-hour spaces, on-street
parking occupancy was found to have increased nearly 10% since 2018 and over half of all downtown
blocks now exceed the industry-recommended 85% peak occupancy threshold;
WHEREAS, unregulated parking at midnight Fridays and Saturdays were observed to exceed 95%
occupancy around the Square and south of Hopkins St.;
WHEREAS, demand driven by the downtown’s proximity to the University necessitates managing
daytime parking sessions to a period less than the current two-hour standard north of Hopkins St.;
WHEREAS, conversely, two-hour parking frequently does not provide enough time for parkers visiting
downtown, resulting in fines and citations which disproportionately impact some citizens;
WHEREAS, the City’s parking operations to manage free parking downtown are currently not selfsupporting and subsidized by the City’s General Fund and tax-payers at large;
WHEREAS, Downtown San Marcos could benefit from a more equitable funding source to support
parking enforcement and provide excess monies to be reinvested in Downtown improvements;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-03 providing for the establishment of a Parking
Benefit District in which funds collected from paid parking spaces can be reinvested within said district;
and;
WHEREAS, paid on-street parking, with a free period, has been found to effectively manage demand,
increase the availability of parking for customers, and generate revenue for district improvements.
(resolution on following page)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PARKING ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF SAN
MARCOS, TEXAS:
Part 1. The Parking Advisory Board adopts the attached “Downtown San Marcos Parking Analysis and
Parking Benefit District Recommendation” report.
Part 2. The Parking Advisory Board recommends City Council implement a Parking Benefit District for
Downtown San Marcos, as laid out therein.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on _____________, 2026

Attest:

Amy Finn
Staff Liaison

John David Carson
Chair

Downtown San Marcos Parking Analysis
and
Parking Benefit District Recommendation
City of San Marcos Parking Advisory Board
Final Draft - June 2026

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 1 of 54

Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary................................................................................................. 3
Existing Conditions & Objectives.............................................................................. 7
Downtown Parking Recommendation .....................................................................23
Technology Recommendation ................................................................................35
Parking Management Staffing Recommendation .....................................................50
Implementation Timeline .......................................................................................53

APPENDIX ITEMS:
A. Downtown Parking Benefit District Map
B. Downtown Parking Benefit District Rate Table
C. Occupancy Data
D. Survey Results
E. Downtown Parking Benefit District Model Exports
F. Downtown Parking Benefit District Application

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 2 of 54

Executive Summary
Existing Conditions Analysis
Beginning in 2024, the Parking Advisory Board (PAB) completed a more than two-year review of
existing conditions and challenges related to downtown parking. This included an examination of
prior professional parking studies; assessment of community surveys; creation of a robust parking
occupancy data set from over 3,000 individual observations; evaluation of City parking
enforcement metrics; analysis of the current parking operations impact on City finances; and a
reflection on equity and the quality of the experience of persons attempting to access downtown.
Some core insights from this review include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

95% of private downtown businesses rely on public, on-street parking for operation
Low availability, limited turnover, and no longer-stay options believed to harm downtown
Frustration with on-street parking use for University visits and by downtown employees
Public expectation for an unachievable suburban parking paradigm in a dense urban core
Skepticism for change, but broad support for any parking revenues being used to the
benefit of Downtown, especially for a public garage and other off-street parking options
Despite improving enforcement collection rates from 33% in 2019 to 68% in 2025:
o Overall parking occupancy increased nearly 10%
o More than half of all downtown blocks now exceed 85% industry recommendation
o Late-night parking occupancy exceeds 95% around Square & south on Th/Fri/Sat
Parking tickets disproportionally impact residents from lower-income census blocks
The City’s General Fund (i.e., taxpayers at large) subsidize ‘free’ downtown parking
Objective Mismatch: Achieving parking policy compliance with enforcement alone would
remove fine revenue, increasing cost burden of parking management on taxpayers

Ultimately, the investigation led the PAB to a summary of key Parking Issues & Guiding Objectives:
Issue

Guiding Objectives

Limited On-Street Parking
Availability

• Increase on-street availability to support downtown businesses
• Prioritize customers of downtown businesses & organizations
• Support alternative options for transportation & off-street parking
• Address unenforced high-occupancy late night hours
• Deter overnight residential car storage parking downtown

Chronic Overstaying of Posted
Time Limits

• Add paid options for longer-stay needs to replace costly fines
• Increase enforcement coverage, efficiency, & efficacy
• Encourage use of off-street lots to free up on-street spaces

External on-street demand from
University and Employees

• Stop downtown from being a free lot for University visits
• Strengthen support of, and options for, downtown employees

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 3 of 54

Issue (cont.)

Guiding Objectives (cont.)

Culture of Loopholes & Limited
Consequences

• Stop stressful, time-consuming parking “musical chairs” every 2 hrs
• Modernize policies & increase consequences for ignoring violations

Misaligned Public Expectations

• Include education materials in parking process flow
• Ensure any excess revenues are spent to the benefit of Downtown
• Track impact of new policies on parking availability & communicate
results to public
• Publicize projects funded by downtown parking revenues

Parking Inequity and Municipal
Burden

• Move from penalty-based system to one that supports voluntary
compliance with reasonable rates and regulations
• Protect at-risk and low-income residents from new financial burden
• Enhance alternative transportation to expand downtown access
• Create a reliable, non-general fund revenue stream from the private
use of the public curb to support parking mgmt and downtown
improvements (e.g. parking, streetscape, alternative transport)

Technology Limitations and
Deployment Conflicts

• Implement a modern, open API-based parking management platform
• Deploy a consistent system for all parking management operations
• Create a customer-focused parking brand, such as ParkSMTX.com

Generating General Fund revenue for the City was determined NOT to be an objective. The PABs
overarching end goal is to have a downtown public parking policy and assets that support equitable
access to a vibrant downtown for all citizens and visitors.
Downtown Parking Benefit District Recommendation
The PAB recommends that a Downtown Parking Benefit District be implemented to achieve those
Guiding Objectives with the following program aspects:
CREATE THREE DOWNTOWN PARKING ZONES based upon observed variations in demand:
• A Downtown Core: bounded by University Dr., San Antonio St., Fredericksburg St. and
Lyndon Baines Johnson Dr. (LBJ)
• The remaining area North of Hopkins
• The remain area South of Hopkins
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FREE PARKING TIME, ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTS:
• The Downtown Core and the North of Hopkins zones are recommended to have 30 minutes
of free time during weekdays from 8AM to 5PM and 60 minutes all other times
• The South of Downtown zone would always allow 60 minutes of free time
• Residents that register their parking session would receive an additional 60-minute
free parking time, for a total of two-free hours (the same as current policy), excluding
the North and Core zones during the weekday peak to curtail University-related use

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 4 of 54

INTRODUCE PAID TIME FOR LONGER STAYS:
• $1 per hour (after the applicable free time)
• In retail-heavy Core Zone only, after first paid hour, $2 / hr to promote turnover
• Maximum stay in Core Zone = 8 hours; Maximum stay in North/South Zone =12 hours
• Paid overnight parking ($15 in Core; $10 in North/South zones) to dissuade downtown
residents from using on-street parking for long-term personal vehicle storage
EXPAND REGULATION TO THURSDAY / FRIDAY NIGHTS AND ALL DAY SATURDAY:
• Continue regulated hours Monday through Wednesday from 8AM to 5PM
• Expand regulation Thursday through Saturday from 8AM to Midnight
• Free Sunday parking without time restrictions
• Implement ticket-by-mail during late night hours for enforcement team safety
CREATE FREE PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK GROUPS AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS
• Free parking downtown in accessible parking spaces, subject to standard time maximums
• Free parking for economically disadvantaged residents (validated by existing City support
programs), subject to standard time maximums
• Downtown PBD will offset all administrative and resident costs for the establishment of any
desired Residential Parking Zone within ¼ mile of the proposed Downtown PBD
EXPAND OPTIONS FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES & EMPLOYEES
• Provide ability for businesses to validate customer parking at a 25% discount parking
• Introduce a limited number of on-street permits for downtown businesses
• Expand existing Employee Parking Program (a 50% subsidy for monthly off-street parking) to
additional off-street lots
SPEND EXCESS REVENUES ON DOWNTOWN
• Alongside any other future PBDs (e.g., Riverfront Parks), first reimburse parking operations
for parking services (e.g., enforcement)
• 100% of excess revenues spent downtown, allocated to qualifying projects by Council
based on PAB-recommendation
Example Parking Session
A table on the following page demonstrates the potential cost of various parking sessions initiated
on a weekday at 10AM by a San Marcos resident under current policy vs the proposed Downtown
PBD zones. Notably, in the South of Hopkins zone, there is no change to free time allowed (2hours), but under the PBD recommendation, the parker could now opt for longer stays at nominal
expense instead of risking a costly ticket.
In the North of Hopkins zone, parking rates would start after 30-minutes to deter free campus visits
but longer stays would be allowed at $1 an hour. Similarly, the Core zone would be limited to 30minutes of free time with longer stays now allowed, but stays longer than 90 minutes (30 minutes

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 5 of 54

free plus first paid hour) would escalate at $2 per hour to incentivize turnover in this retail heavy
area.
Most importantly, all areas would now provide an option for longer-stays to avoid costly fines that,
if unadjudicated, could lead to vehicular immobilization.
Example Parking Expense – San Marcos Resident parking at 10AM on weekday
Parking Session
Length

Current
Policy

South Zone

Proposed Downtown PBD
North Zone

Core Zone

30-minute
1-hour
2-hours
3-hours
4-hours
5-hours
6-hours
… to max time

Free
Free
Free
Prohibited - $50 Fine1
Prohibited - $50 Fine1
Prohibited - $50 Fine_
Prohibited - $50 Fine_
Prohibited - $50 Fine_

Free
Free
Free
$1
$2
$3
$4
12 hours max = $10

Free
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
12 hours max = $12

Free
$1
$3
$5
$7
$9
$11
8 hours max = $15

Downtown Parking Benefit District Financials
The Parking Advisory Board created an initial financial model based upon the recommended
Downtown PBD which projects between $475,000 and $1,400,000 per year (scenario dependent) in
net funds to be generated for investment in downtown, after offsetting parking operation expenses.
Personnel and Technology Recommendations
The successful launch of a Downtown PBD will require an expansion of human resources and
deployment of new technology. This document contains detailed commentary on both. In
summary, the PAB suggests two new parking management roles and additional enforcement staff
to support the Downtown PBD and relieve resource strain from the City Park Paid Parking Pilot.
Estimates of these expenses were included in the financial analysis. For technology, the PAB
recommends improving the consistency of the customer experience around a common platform,
potentially branded as ParkSMTX.com. While multi-language physical meters are still
recommended for accessibility and equity, the PAB believes a robust pay-by-app/phone offering
will be most effective. There also remain opportunities to consolidate the backend modules of the
City’s parking management systems while remaining grounded around OpenAPIs and nonnegotiable user privacy and security requirements.
Implementation Timeline
If council approves, we recommend implementing the Downtown Parking Benefit District after a
technology procurement and onboarding process in early 2027 with a soft-launch in the summer
and a full launch Fall 2027 following the start of the Texas State University academic year.

1

Excluding a limited number of existing 4-hour spaces in the southeast quadrant of downtown

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 6 of 54

Existing Conditions & Objectives
For more than thirty years, residents, visitors, and downtown businesses – and their employees –
have expressed frustration with parking in downtown San Marcos. Even non-drivers have
complained about the abundant use of the public curb for private vehicles without sufficient
management. And, while there has long been a public outcry to ‘do something about downtown
parking,’ there has not been a consensus on the problem(s) or how to address them.
Before evaluating solutions, the Parking Advisory Board (PAB) endeavored to catalogue the variety
of issues – whether perceived or substantiated – that have been expressed by frustrated downtown
goers. This section first reviews survey data from 2018 and 2025. It then turns to empirical data,
first on enforcement and then on utilization and turnover. The data are drawn from both past
studies as well as more recent updates from 2024 – 2026 by City staff and Texas State University
students. Finally, it ends with a synthesis of the primary issues with downtown on-street parking
and pairs each issue with a Guiding Objective used by the Parking Advisory Board to derive
proposed recommendations.

Public Surveys
Survey Context
Despite its seemingly dull nature, parking in America has become an emotional, triggering topic for
many. Anecdote and personal experience often obscure consideration of systematic issues,
especially those that challenge the status quo. The car-dominated landscape of contemporary
development can also create an impractical expectation for parking in downtowns and other
compact, walkable areas. Desires for convenient parking often ignore the spatial realities of
historic urban cores built before the dominance of automotive transportation. If the city were to
provide the kind of expansive free parking found in sprawling suburban areas, geometry would
simply dictate the destruction of places like downtown San Marcos. And yet, that experience
colors perspectives and desires. It is therefore understandably difficult for the average driver to
refrain from demanding abundant, free parking at all times and places.
Acknowledging the resulting difficulty for a survey to effectively guide parking policy, the Parking
Advisory Board ultimately favors a data-driven approach that is principally informed by experts and
best practices to assess the performance of downtown parking and develop solutions. That said,
the PAB is not dismissive of the experiences, challenges, and hardships of residents, visitors, and
employees accessing the Downtown by personal vehicle. There are valuable insights to be
captured to better inform parking management policy by surveying the opinions of stakeholders
and residents.
Prior to developing recommendations for downtown parking, the PAB requested that City staff
furnish the most recent downtown parking survey(s) for review and conduct two new ones: one
open to downtown business owners (called the “Stakeholder” survey hereinafter) and another
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 7 of 54

open to the general public (called the “Community” survey hereinafter). Independent of the
Parking Advisory Board, the City also included a handful of questions related to public parking and
paid parking in its 2025 National Community Survey.
2018 DASM Stakeholder Parking Survey
It appears the most “recent” prior stakeholder survey focused primarily on downtown parking was
conducted in 2018 by the Downtown Association of San Marcos (DASM) shortly after the City first
launched License Plate Recognition (LPR) enforcement. That survey collected 46 responses from
downtown business and property owners and revealed a near even split of opinions of the
implementation of paid parking. However, there were areas of broad agreement. 88% of
respondents stated that the blanket 2-hour time limit was not meeting the needs of customers,
employees, and visitors. 75% responded that, if the City were to implement paid parking, they
would favor a Parking Benefit District where any excess revenue was spent solely on downtown.
Open comments highlighted several sentiments including requests for a public downtown parking
garage, concerns about downtown employees and affordability, a lack of longer stay parking
options, support for alternative transportation, and the need for enforcement improvements.
2025 Parking Specific City-led Stakeholder Parking Survey
The 2025 Parking Specific Surveys largely reinforced public sentiment but did offer some new
insights. Beginning with a Downtown Stakeholder survey, the effort collected 41 responses. Of
those respondents, 71% of private businesses indicated they relied almost exclusively on public,
on-street parking for customers and employees. In fact, only 5% indicated they did not rely on
public, on-street parking at all – demonstrating an exceptional reliance on a public asset for
private commerce.
When asked to convey their top concern, Stakeholders overwhelmingly highlighted two issues: a
lack of parking availability (46%) and the restricted time limit (32%). However, when asked to
prioritize improvements to on-street parking the issues flipped with 56% favoring more “options for
parking on-street longer than two hours” and 32% prioritizing “increased availability of short-term
parking.” It is notable that just over a third of responses to this question selected answers that
related to enhanced enforcement and stiffer consequences for violating parking ordinances. And,
consistent with the DASM survey, respondents were split on whether paid parking would benefit
them with 56% responding with “Yes” or “Indifferent” and 44% responding “No.”
For any funds generated by paid parking or a Parking Benefit District, Stakeholders showed a clear
preference for creating additional public off-street parking and expanding employee programs and
enhancing downtown maintenance, safety, and security.
In terms of framing the perspectives of stakeholder respondents, 65% were affiliated with a
business north of Hopkins, 68% operated an entertainment or restaurant business, and 50% felt
there was “minimal or no parking available.” The respondent pool was deemed too small for any
statistically significant assessment of cross tabulation group analysis.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 8 of 54

Open responses referenced similar themes to the 2018 DASM survey, including concern for
employee parking, the impact paid parking could have on their business, some skepticism that
parking revenues would be actually spent downtown, notes regarding overnight parking by
residents and guests of downtown housing, and continued references to the desire for a downtown
public garage. Several respondents expressed support for paid parking but with an exemption for
their employees.
2025 Parking Specific City-Led Community Survey
The Parking Specific Survey open to the Broader Community received a mire sizable data set with
574 respondents, predominately (69%) from residents that visit downtown but do not live or work
there. Only 66 responses came from non-residents and 99 (17%) from Texas State University
students.
Interestingly, nearly 70% felt that parking was “Sometimes” or “Always” available, though when
asked to identify the top issue with downtown parking 55% indicated a “Lack of parking
availability.” While most respondents indicated a primary use of daytime parking (8AM – 5PM)
nearly 2/3rds (64%) also indicated they used parking during the 5PM to 10PM hours and 20% stated
they visit very late night / early morning.
Like the Stakeholders, many (17%) noted primary support for downtown parking funds being spent
on “additional public off-street parking” but there was collectively strong support for nonautomotive transportation modes led by expanding pedestrian (14%), transit (10%), and bike (8%)
infrastructure which would be supported by enhanced streetscaping (13%).
On the matter of paid parking, the likely payers were similarly split on paid parking with 53% noting
opposition and 47% supporting or expressing indifference. When considering this query was
asking users to pay for a currently “free” service, these responses were viewed as surprisingly
favorable to paid parking by some on the PAB.
The PAB expressed interest in isolating the responses of non-residents as a proxy for tourism. Most
(77%) indicated they came Downtown primarily for Dining and Entertaining or Shopping. 64% of
this response group supported paid parking with proceeds used for Downtown improvements and
50% indicated their top priority was pedestrian improvements.
Open comments in the Community Survey varied somewhat from the Stakeholder responses with
more respondents referencing students parking downtown to access campus, notes regarding
safety issues when maneuvering vehicles that are parking or exiting a space, and many comments
that their openness to paying was dependent on the pricing.
Some commenters indicated that they’d be more likely to come downtown with paid parking
creating more available spaces. Other comments indicated they’d be less likely to come
downtown if they had to pay. Still others wanted on-street parking to remain free but with the
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 9 of 54

addition of paid off-street garages, a recommendation in conflict with parking research and best
practice.
A significant number of comments questioned whether there was even a parking problem as much
as an issue with people not being willing to walk a modest distance. Others encouraged less
dedication of downtown space to vehicles, whether parked or moving, and asked the City to
prioritize housing, transit, and alternative forms of mobility in the core instead of dedicate more
space or increasing financial investments in parking.
Perhaps more than the percentages themselves, the open comments of all the surveys highlighted
for the Parking Advisory Board the challenges with forming parking policy based predominately on
public sentiment.
2025 National Community Survey
The City of San Marcos partnered with Polco to collect feedback from residents through the
National Community Survey (NCS). The 2025 NCS included both a Scientific (Mailed) survey
mailed to a random sample of 3,500 households and an open participation survey available online.
The 2025 NCS also referenced the prior 2022 NCS to evaluate trends and changes in public
opinion. This report will discuss the scientific survey results related to parking. More information
about the process and overall effort is available on the City’s website at:
https://www.sanmarcostx.gov/4645/2025-National-Community-Survey.
The 2025 NCS included some questions regarding paid parking; however, the Parking Advisory
Board was not consulted or advised of the parking related-questions prior to their inclusion in the
NCS. As such, the questions in the NCS varied from those in the Parking-Specific survey and
excluded reference to the possibility of a Parking Benefit District directing revenues from potential
paid parking being directed to improvements to downtown.
Nevertheless, the NCS concluded, “Overall, residents showed no clear consensus on whether paid
parking would be an effective tool for managing parking challenges.” Possibly due to the exclusion
of reference to the Parking Benefit District concept, public opinion across the paid parking
questions trended closer to 60/40% against in the NCS survey.
Notably, the NCS found an increase from 25% to 34% of respondents finding ease of public parking
from 2022, though the question was not specific to downtown. Additionally, 57% of respondents
felt ease of travel by car was excellent or good (an increase of 20%), but unfortunately there were
declines in perception of ease of travel by public transit (29% à 25%), bicycle (34% à 30%) and
walking (42% à 39%). Again, those questions were not specific to downtown, but as the densest
portion of the City most supportive of active transportation, these do support the thesis that
additional investment in alternative modes downtown to reduce parking demand may be
warranted.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 10 of 54

Summary of Survey Insights
• Extreme reliance on free use of a public asset for commercial purposes
• Lack of longer stay options felt to be harming businesses
• A near even split on whether paid parking is desired when the PBD concept is included
• Support for a parking benefit district, if paid parking is implemented
• Desire for more off-street supply and increased turnover of on-street spaces
• Otherwise divergent priorities for use of parking revenues with Stakeholders favoring safety
and maintenance and the Community favoring streetscape and alternative transportation
• Caution basing any parking policy on public sentiment outside points of clear consensus

Enforcement Protocols and Data Analysis
San Marcos has modernized its enforcement technology and processes over the years, including
the deployment of mobile License Plate Recognition to scan parked vehicles during regulated time
periods and flag potential violations for ticketing. The City recently upgraded both its enforcement
software and hardware, which are discussed in more detail in Technology Section. Additionally,
the parking enforcement function has also evolved in recent years by transitioning primary
enforcement from the San Marcos Police Department to the City Marshal’s Office, which is
discussed in more detail in the Staffing Recommendations section. And finally, a 2024 update of
citation fees and immobilization (aka ‘booting) policies and the 2025 roll-out of Barnacle2
immobilization devices for exceptionally delinquent parkers have added more consequence to
parking violations.
The result has been a material increase in the percentage of citations paid. While the City’s
backend reporting module has not historically facilitated precise matching of the date of citation to
date of payment, the City has been tracking paid vs. issued citations monthly since at least April
2019 (per Jan 2022 PAB Agenda Packet). The 2019 average collection rate was just 33%, meaning
two out of every three parking citations were simply ignored by the violator. In contrast the average
collection rate had increased to 68% as of July 20253.
This is marked improvement toward a goal of policy compliance, but room for improvement
remains. Industry targets for collection rates vary substantially based on the mechanisms the
ticketing entity has at its disposal. Generally, parking citations are simply a civil offense in San
Marcos. The City has recently gained the ability to look up license plates and mail collection
notices to the registered owner of vehicles with unpaid tickets.
The City may also wish to investigate implementing additional consequences, such as use of a
collection agency or placing a hold on vehicular registration renewals for exceptional
delinquencies, to further improve collection rates. Given its available options for holding
A modern immobilization device that fully obscures a vehicle’s window shield until removed by the offender upon credit
card payment. The device includes GPS tracking and must be returned after removal.
3
July 2025 was the last month prior to a hardware and software transition that confounded enforcement data for some
months until system roll completed implementation and processes stabilized early 2026.
2

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 11 of 54

violators accountable, the Parking Advisory Board believes the City of San Marcos should
target a collection rate of at least 80% within 90-days of ticket issuance.
Effective and respected enforcement is a prerequisite for a parking operation that ensures
compliance to City parking ordinances without providing additional taxpayer burden, but it is not
sufficient on its own for efficient, equitable management of the valuable space along the
Downtown public curb. To fully assess the efficacy of a parking management program, utilization
and financial data must be gathered and analyzed.

Parking Data Collection and Analysis
There are over 50 parking violation codes currently monitored by parking enforcement, but most
citations relate to overstaying the nearly blanket 2-hour maximum parking4 stay in downtown.
Three common metrics for assessing compliance with parking time limits (whether paid or unpaid)
are Occupancy, Turnover, and Violation Rate. For the purposes of this report, “Occupancy” refers
to the percentage of parking spaces on a block-face that are occupied at the time of measurement.
“Turnover” refers to the number of vehicles that use a typical parking space within a studied area
over a given time. Overtime “Violation rate” is the number of vehicles in violation of regulated time
limits.
Industry targets for these metrics may vary by circumstance, but the generally accepted heuristic is
to avoid exceeding an 85% average occupancy on any block-face. This number ensures public
parking assets are well-utilized while an open space or two remain available for new parkers
arriving at their destination. Targets for Turnover and Violation Rate are less established, but the
report conducted by Kimley-Horn for the City suggested a target of five to seven vehicle “turns” per
regulated day per space and a Violation Rate of 3 – 5%.
2018 Kimley-Horn Parking Utilization Data
In August and September of 2018 (one day each month), Kimley-Horn conducted an analysis of the
City’s License Plate Recognition system and spot readings of select high-demand blocks to
extrapolate occupancy at 10AM, 1PM and 7PM and to approximate Turnover and Violation Rates on
a select section of blocks. A more detailed breakdown of their results can be found in the source
study, but Kimley-Horn reported the peak collection hour during its 2018 collection effort to be 1PM
with an overall downtown parking occupancy rate of 70% at that time but with 19 high-demand
blocks exceeding 85% Occupancy representing 42% of the 722 spaces included in their study.
Kimley-Horn also conducted some limited analysis of Turnover at only 2.3 vehicles per space per
regulated day (approx. 9AM to 5PM) and of Overtime Violation Rate at 11%.
2024-2026 City and Texas State Parking Utilization
While the 2018 data was informative and supported Kimley-Horn’s recommendation to implement
paid parking at that time, it is now out of date. Current staff and the Parking Advisory Board desired
4
A limited number of blocks include 4-hour parking zones introduced in recent years as longer-stay options for
employees and patrons of businesses with longer service periods

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 12 of 54

a more up-to-date and thorough study. A combination of City parking staff and Texas State
University students enrolled in GEO 4356 Urban Infrastructure Management completed “feet-topavement” direct observational counts in 2024 and 20255. Those data collections included
observations during early morning, weekend, and late-night hours which Kimley-Horn had not
included. These systematic counts were completed along a prescribed, consistent route for
observation with each discrete collection event taking 90 to 120 minutes.
The 2024 collection was completed by City staff across 16 individual observations between
February and September surveying the 867 catalogued downtown parking spaces at various
periods Monday through Saturday from 10AM to 7PM. Subsequently, from September to October
2025, Texas State University students collected 63 unique observations6 of 787 parking spaces with
collection days and times aimed at filling in data gaps in the early morning (6AM), Thursday –
Saturday nights (8PM and Midnight), and Saturday daytime (1PM). Collectively, these latest data
collection efforts represented over 3,000 individual block observations and created a data set for
parking analysis previously unavailable.
Turnover and Violation Rate
In March of 2026, City enforcement staff and parking management collaborated on a single-day
focused mobile LPR data collection effort wherein license plate reads were taken at an enhanced
frequency (approximately every 20 minutes) on four blocks: the 100 Block of E Hopkins, the 100
Block of N LBJ, the 100 Block of N. Guadalupe, and the 200 Block of N. Guadalupe. This focus
allowed staff to analyze license plate reads for Turnover during the regulated day as well as
violation rate. For the observed date, turnover on these blocks ranged from 3 to 5 vehicles per
regulated day (3.6 across the four-block study area) and the violation rate was 6.3%. Both metrics
remain outside recommended Kimley-Horn targets.
While managing down Violation Rate is important for parking management, Turnover is not
necessarily a metric that has a universal target value, but which may vary on a block-by-block
basis. Low turnover may be desired by businesses that require longer-term client stays (e.g., a
salon or mediation office) while business providing quick service to customers (e.g., cleaners or
quick service restaurants) may favor rapid turnover. Low turnover within proximity of the University
may indicate that public on-street spaces are being utilized for campus access rather than local
business support. Alternatively, if evaluated alongside occupancy, low turnover could be an
indication of a block with low on-street parking demand. Regardless, systematically and
periodically tracking Turnover on a per block basis before and after changes in regulations can be
insightful and is recommend, especially as new policies are implemented and assessed.

A 2023 collection exercise was also completed by Texas State students and delivered key insights into collection
methodologies, but its data is excluded as a more honed process was utilized for the 2024 and 2025 collections
6
For student collections, multiple students collected during the same periods for comparative and accuracy purposes.
Some student observations were excised from the data set where outlier information indicated the rigor of the sample
may not be sufficient
5

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 13 of 54

Occupancy
For the purposes of evaluating the existing conditions, the PAB focused most on analyzing
Occupancy across several dimensions: overall; per block for 50 blocks; across parking zones; by
time of day; and by day of week. Detailed result tables are included in the Appendix.
For analysis, Average Occupancy was placed into bands matching those originally established by
Kimley-Horn:
• RED: Greater than 90% indicating parking demand is in severe need of management
• ORANGE: Greater than 85% indicating occupancy that exceeds industry best-practice
• YELLOW: Greater than 75% indicating a well-used public resource to monitor
• GREEN: Greater than 50% indicating ample parking availability
• BLUES: Less than 50% indicating a block with open capacity
First, Kimley-Horn’s 2018 observed single afternoon peak weekday7 occupancy was compared to
the average weekday afternoon occupancy collected in 2024-2025. Occupancy was observed to
increase from 70% à 78% and 26 blocks were observed with occupancy above the 85%
threshold – representing half of blocks and parking spaces in the 2024-2025 study.
Weekday Afternoon Peak Comparison
2018 Kimley-Horn
2024-2025 City/TXST
Overall Occupancy
70%
78%
Blocks >85%
19
26
% Spaces
42%
50%

Expanding out to all measured time periods from the 2024-2025 collection from 10AM to Midnight8,
the overall downtown average occupancy was measured 76% with 36% of blocks (18 blocks)
exceeding the 85% threshold.
Overall Block Band Analysis, excluding 6AM
Threshold

# Blocks

% of Blocks

90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

12
6
11
13
6
2
50

24%
12%
22%
26%
12%
4%
100%

Notably, the number of blocks averaging above 85% occupancy is nearly 50% (24 blocks) when
evaluating whether a block averaged over 85% during either the current regulated period (M-F, 8AM
As noted, Kimley-Horn reported a peak at 1PM on a weekday. 2024-2025 weekday afternoon collections were
conducted at 2PM and the average of all collected 2PM readings are utilized for the comparison instead of simple one
peak day
7

8

6AM excluded as an outlier collection period with limited on-street parking use

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 14 of 54

– 5PM) or “After Hours” (Thursday/Friday after 5PM and all day Saturday). [Note this is comparing
average occupancies across all days and times period collected, not only at the afternoon weekday
peak as in the prior paragraph.]
Based on a visual analysis of blocks exceeding the 85% during currently regulated times, the
Parking Advisory Board grouped blocks into three parking areas, as shown in the map in the
Appendix. A Core Zone includes the main courthouse square and is generally bound by University
Dr. to the north, LBJ Dr. to the east, San Antonio St. to the south, and Fredericksburg St. to the west.
A North Zone includes all blocks north of Hopkins St., excluding those in the Core Zone, and a
South Zone includes all blocks south of Hopkins St., excluding those in the Core Zone. These
zones were used in the analysis of days of the week and times of day to inform final
recommendations.
During the weekday, peak occupancy is observed in the North zone measuring at nearly 95%
across all northern blocks at 11AM, dipping slightly over lunch, and then returning to near 90%
during the 2PM collection. These results support the thesis that public, free downtown parking
closer to Texas State campus is being used for access to the University.

Time of Day (weekdays)
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
Grand Total

6:00 AM
12%
27%
33%
23%

10:00 AM
70%
84%
41%
68%

11:00 AM
78%
94%
52%
78%

12:00 PM
78%
78%
48%
71%

2:00 PM
82%
88%
56%
78%

7:00 PM
88%
82%
68%
80%

8:00 PM
73%
64%
77%
70%

While only exceeding the 85% average threshold across the entire zone during 8PM collections
(taken Thursday and Friday evenings), the Core zone demonstrated the most consistent occupancy
demand throughout the weekday and the South zone had the lowest parking demand pressures.
A different picture emerges in the late-night hours of Friday through Saturday at midnight. One of
the key additional insights gleaned from the 2025 samples is that the midnight parking
occupancies were among the highest of all the collected time periods. Perhaps surprisingly,
the late-night demand extends well into the South zone boosting its overall occupancy almost
identical to the Core at midnight. Demand in the North Zone wanes noticeably after hours.
Thursday midnight collections were not taken but are assumed to also show elevated parking
demand based on anecdotal reports.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 15 of 54

Time of Day (Friday Midnight & Saturday)
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
Grand Total

12:00 AM
96%
69%
95%
85%

1:00 PM
92%
79%
87%
85%

8:00 PM
73%
67%
78%
72%

Conversely, there were more limited instances of early morning (i.e., 6AM) occupancy exceeding
the industry target of 85% across zones, though certain blocks did show relatively high 6AM
occupancy indicative of some downtown residents using on-street parking for regular vehicular
storage that could be detrimental to adjacent businesses’ morning customer base.

Early Morning
Proposed Zone
Core

Tuesday

Thursday
12%

Grand Total
12%
12%

North

26%

28%

27%

South

31%

34%

33%

Blocks near or above 50% occupancy at 6AM were limited to the following, all being near Texas
State campus, dormitories, or downtown residential complexes. Occupancies were generally
below 60%, except directly abutting Texas State University:
• San Antonio between Guadalupe & Fredericksburg
• San Antonio between Fredericksburg & Comanche
• Comanche between Lindsey & Pat Garrison
• Lindsey between Comanche & Fredericksburg
• North St. between Burleson & Lindsey
• N. LBJ between University and Concho
• Concho between N. LBJ & Guadalupe
• Fredericksburg between Pat Garisson & Lindsey
• Hutchison between Comanche & North St.
• S. Guadalupe between MLK and the Railroad Tracks
• MLK between Guadalupe and Fredericksburg
Given the breadth and collection methods, the Parking Advisory Board has a high level of
confidence in the utilization data collected by City staff and Texas State students in 2025. While
the Kimley-Horn data from 2018 has served as a useful benchmark, the comprehensive nature of
this collection provides a firmer foundation off which the Parking Advisory Board can draw
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 16 of 54

conclusions about existing conditions and derive recommendations toward a more effective public
parking program for the future.
Despite substantial the improvements in enforcement since 2019, the 2024 / 2025 data
demonstrate deteriorating conditions and utilization far above recommended industry targets
during peak demand, particularly daytime in the Core & North Zone and in the Core & South
Zones at the midnight collection. While early morning parking occupancies were generally
low overall, some blocks indicate overnight residential parking use that may impede morning
access to downtown businesses. These observations support the case for additional parking
management strategies beyond enforcement alone.

Inequity
The idea of charging for a resource previously viewed as free can justifiably spark concerns of
inequity. Using a price-based rationing system for parking risks excluding people based on their
ability to pay, and so the PAB looked for data that could link income to parking demand.
Unfortunately, we currently only have one metric that can link parking demand downtown to
income, and that is the address information on unpaid violations older than 30 days. From the
address, we can get the median income range for the census tract, providing a snapshot of income
for the subset of vehicles that were not able to immediately pay their tickets.
When looking at all violations mailed between September 26, 2025 and December 10, 2025, 58%
are from Census tracts with a median income above $75,000 (Figure X). For reference, the median
income in San Marcos in 2024 (the most current census data available) was $48,091 (Table S1901
ACS 1-year estimate), and there are only 3 (of 20) census tracts within the city boundaries with a
median income over $75,000, The next question we asked was how many of these addresses were
within the 78666 zip code, since the distribution of violations did not match the SMTX census
tracts.
Only 135 of 787 violations were from 78666, or roughly 17%. In other words, when it comes to
inequity, we also need to recognize that our lower-income town is subsidizing free parking for
visitors who are disproportionately wealthier. Moreover, this unmanaged free parking is creating
conditions where long-term residents do not feel able to go downtown because they are unsure of
being able to find parking. Downtown businesses are closing and new businesses may hesitate to
go in because of parking concerns. These also create equity concerns.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 17 of 54

Further, the current system that solely assesses parking fines for overstays without offering more
affordable compliant rates options can impact certain at-risk groups disproportionately. Patrons
of businesses as varied as salons, professional offices, and tattoo artists with appointments in
excess of the allowed two-hour time period often have no choice but to receive a ticket for overstay
or disrupt their task to play the farcical game of “musical chairs” and move their vehicle to a new
space to avoid citation. And, while on-street public parking is not likely the best solution for
employees of downtown businesses, many downtown employees feel placed in an impossible
situation.
This brings us back to the citation data. When we look only at the 135 violations within 78666, we
see a distribution that somewhat reflects our city (though still with a few higher income tracts from
elsewhere in the zip code). These represent not visitors who missed a ticket, but residents who are
confronting a parking system that does not work for their current conditions. Each of these
violations is at least $50 in fines, but for the proportion that are fined for overstays (the majority of
fines downtown) these would only be a dollar or two of predictable payment in a paid parking
system.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 18 of 54

While a user-fee based system such as paid parking necessitates a thoughtful approach to mitigate
the potential for inequity, the current system that solely relies on fines to regulate a public asset
can also become a highly regressive and inequitable form of taxation.
And finally, it is also important to note that the substantial costs of maintaining the “free” public
parking in the current system socializes those costs to the entire population – whether they park
downtown or even drive at all. We know from the academic literature that non-drivers are
disproportionately lower-income than those who own cars, so our current system of subsidizing
car owners is itself inequitable.9 There are many public costs that governments rationally socialize,
but especially in an challenging municipal finance environment, it is worth reconsideration as to
whether on-street downtown parking should be one of them.

Parking’s Impact on City Finances
While on-street parking in San Marcos is currently deemed “free,” there is are substantial
operating, maintenance, capital, and opportunity costs related to public parking management.
Prior to 2024, the City was not isolating and tracking the revenues and expenses from parkingrelated activities from other accounts in the general fund. While the accounting processes needed
to full isolate parking revenues and expense are not yet established, the Parking Advisory Board
now receives a “Parking Income Statement” quarterly which aggregates operating income
(predominately enforcement fines) and offsets it against operating and management expenses
such as fuel, personnel, software, signage, and more.
Prior to the increase of parking fines in 2024, the City was running about a $10,000 per month loss
only accounting for operating expense. Operations are now approaching break-even following the
9
King, D. A., Smart ,M. J., and Manville, M. (2022) ”The Poverty of the Carless: Toward Universal Auto Access” Journal of
the American Planning Association 42(3) 464-481

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 19 of 54

updated fee structure and enforcement and collection improvements. However, the capital,
maintenance, and opportunity costs are likely the greatest expenses and not yet captured. The
cost of maintaining the surface pavement, while more periodic, is an even greater expense for the
City. And, most of all, the opportunity cost of the public space dedicated to free on-street parking
is exceptional. Every lane of on-street parking could instead be street trees, safer sidewalks,
improved lighting, protected bike lanes, bus stops, cafe seating, outdoor market displays,
biofiltration areas, and a host of other elements that enhance the public realm and the
community.
Certainly, on-street parking provides a substantial benefit, but there are costs and trade-offs which
are not free but instead are currently socialized to be borne by the general public and not recouped
by the motorists utilizing the spaces outside of fine assessments for overstay or other violations.

Issue Summary
Synthesizing the survey information, observational data, and stakeholder and user feedback and
anecdotes, the Parking Advisory Board compiled the following summary of issues with current
downtown parking.
•

•

•

•

Limited On-Street Parking Availability: Occupancy exceeds industry recommendation on
nearly half of all downtown blocks during periods of peak demand. Potential visitors
arriving by personal vehicle may be discouraged from patronizing downtown business or
attending events because of the uncertainty of parking availability.
Chronic Overstaying of Posted Time Limits with Limited Longer-stay Options: The
overstay rate in downtown is double industry standard. Limited options for parking needs
greater than two-hours puts pressure on customers and others to feel they cannot visit
downtown without the added stress and expense of an overstay violation. Further, the
temptation of free parking on-street limits the motivation for users to find off-street lots.
Off-street lots that would typically be priced lower than on-street spaces are frequently not
priced efficiently since on-street parking is always free.
External On-street Demand from University and Downtown Employees: The issue
appears to be exacerbated by external demand, as the current 2-hour time limit
accommodates non-customer uses, such as parking for visits to Texas State campus.
Additionally, employees whose employers have not accounted for employee parking
accommodation will frequently risk ticketing and occupy on-street public parking intended
for the general public to visit downtown.
Culture of Limited Consequences & Loopholes: Decades of inconsistent enforcement
and a lack of consequences for ticket non-payment has bred a culture of non-compliance
and disregard for the City’s parking ordinances. While San Marcos has made great strides in
enforcement over the last five years, violation and collection rates remain well off targets.
Further, tolerance for practices such as parking “musical chairs” (which refers to drivers
repeatedly moving their vehicle to nearby spaces to avoid exceeding the 2-hour parking
lime) are suppressing additional violations from even being cited.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 20 of 54

•

•

•

Misaligned Public Expectations: Dominate suburban development patterns where
parking is excessively abundant and years of obscuring the cost of managing downtown
public parking assets have made many drivers view free on-street parking as an rightful
entitlement. Additionally, some see paying even a nominal amount for parking as an
extractive tax instead of something that contributes toward maintaining and enhancing the
vitality and vibrance of downtown.
Parking Inequity and Municipal Burden: The current free-with-fines system fosters
unpredictable parking availability that intimidates many, socializes the costs of parking
private vehicles on the public curb, and regressively fines population segments with the
least disposable income. Additionally, parking management has historically operated at a
significant municipal loss. While increased parking citation rates are moving operational
expenses toward break-even, the substantial capital costs of maintaining on-street parking
still falls to the City’s general fund obligations.
Technology Limitations and Disparate Systems: The City has made strides in
modernizing its parking technology; however, there remains several disparate systems in
use across various parking functions that present an opportunity for system integrations to
make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. The current user experience is
inconsistent across multiple parking related transactions a citizen may have with the City.

Guiding Objectives
Naming the key issues allowed the Parking Advisory Board to outline Guiding Objectives toward
addressing each. The PAB identified the following guiding objectives for consideration while
developing its recommendations.
• Limited On-Street Parking Availability
o Increase on-street availability to consistently have a few open spaces on all blocks
(industry recommended 85% occupancy or less)
o Prioritize availability for customers of downtown businesses and organizations
o Support alternative transportation options that reduce parking demand overall
o Address unenforced high-occupancy late night hours (Thursday – Saturday)
o Deter overnight residential on-street car storage downtown
o Consider systems which help guide parkers to areas with available spaces
• Chronic Overstaying of Posted Time Limits with Limited Longer-stay Options
o Add paid options for longer stay needs to replace costly fines
o Increase enforcement efficiency and efficacy
o Encourage use of off-street lots to create more on-street space availability
o Create new off-street options for longer-stay customer parking
o Reduce overstay violation rate below 5% with a long-term target of 1-2%
• External On-Street Demand from University and Downtown Employees
o Stop downtown from being a free lot for University visits
o Utilize parking revenue to support additional affordable employee parking options

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 21 of 54

•

•

•

•

Culture of Limited Consequences & Loopholes
o Modernize policies to better support enforcement
o Stop stressful, time-consuming parking “musical chairs” practices
o Consider additional consequences for unpaid tickets to achieving a citation
collection rate above 80%
Misaligned Public Expectations
o Include educational materials in parking process flow
o Track benefits of new parking management approach on parking availability &
communicate results to public
o Ensure any excess revenues are spent to the benefit of downtown
o Publicize projects funded by downtown parking revenues
Parking Inequity and Municipal Burden
o Protect at-risk and low-income residents from new financial burden
o Move from penalty-based system to one that supports voluntary compliance with
reasonable rates and regulations
o Require accessible and inclusive systems to accommodate all citizens
o Enhance alternative transportation to expand downtown access
o Create a reliable, non-general fund revenue stream from the private use of the
public curb to support parking management and downtown improvements (e.g.
parking, streetscape, alternative transport)
Technology Limitations and Disparate Systems
o Implement a modern, open API-based parking management platform
o Deploy a single system for all parking management operations (not just Downtown)
o Create a customer-focused parking brand, such as ParkSMTX.com

Using downtown paid parking to create new revenue for the City’s General Fund was decided by
the Parking Advisory Board NOT to be an objective of its recommendation. However, since our
town’s historic urban core has on-street parking demand that, if unrestricted, exceeds supply,
reasonable parking fees to manage demand may generate revenue. It is the objective of the
Parking Advisory Board to use that revenue to firstly fund parking management operations to
remove burden on the City’s general fund and secondarily invest any excess revenues back into the
downtown.
More broadly, the overarching end goal is to have a downtown public parking policy and
assets that support equitable access to a vibrant downtown for all citizens and visitors
without unduly subsidizing private car use.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 22 of 54

Downtown Parking Recommendation
Overview
The Parking Advisory Board recommends that a Downtown Parking Benefit District (PBD) and a
municipal paid parking program be implemented to manage both on-street parking spaces and
publicly available off-street lots in downtown. This program would maintain free parking time for
short stays while introducing the ability for downtown drivers to pay for extended stays – rather
than forcing them to move their vehicle every two hours as required by current policies. City
residents that register their vehicle would get additional free time for parking sessions. Businesses
would also have the opportunity to buy/validate parking for their customers at a discounted 25%
rate. Downtown employees would gain access to a permit program for off-street and some limited
on-street spaces. And, to maintain and expand access for all, the Parking Advisory Board
recommends that accessible (aka ADA) spaces and parking for low-income City residents be free.

Parking Benefit District
A parking benefit district (PBD) is designed to ensure that the revenues generated from paid parking
are used within the area where the paid parking is located. They are considered a parking
management best practice because they link payment to the resources and areas the user is
using—you’re paying to park downtown to experience downtown, and a PBD ensures that your
payment gets reinvested back in downtown.
San Marcos passed a parking benefit district ordinance in January 2024. In the ordinance parking
benefit districts are defined as areas in which a percentage of revenues generated will go to fund
improvements that:
1) Promote walking, cycling, and public transit
2) Enhance the public realm
3) Improve parking efficiency or availability
Under the ordinance, districts need to include at least 100 potential paid parking spaces. They can
be created by city council, either on their own initiative or by recommendation from another board
or commission. Each district requires a separate ordinance, and there are no PBDs currently in San
Marcos. If one is established, revenues first go to cover the costs of operating the district. Once
costs are covered, not less than 80% of revenue remaining will be reinvested in the district.
Establishing a PBD for downtown would create a stable revenue stream for downtown
improvements, like street trees, sidewalks, and maintenance workers, freeing up tax dollars
currently spent on these items to go to other parts of the city. It also provides a potential revenue
stream for any future bonds necessary to expand parking availability.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 23 of 54

Parking Regulation Specifics: Hours, Geographies, and Rates
Hours
Based on its review of existing parking demand and utilization information, the Parking Advisory
Board recommends a multiple-part approach to expanding the hours of parking management.
• Expand parking enforcement to Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights and Saturday
daytime10. This aligns with downtown stakeholders request for more enforcement and
empirical observational data regarding unregulated periods of peak demand.
• Implement paid parking 8am to 5pm Monday-Wednesday and 8am-midnight ThursdaySaturday. Sunday and evening hours Monday-Wednesday would remain free.
• Eliminate free overnight parking to ensure residents of downtown properties are not
utilizing the public curb for long-term parking storage to the detriment of downtown
businesses and organizations.
• Maintain a period of free time for all parkers with expanded free time for residents that
generally aligns with the current policy, except for certain high demand zones during peak
Paid parking is intended to expand access to downtown, especially for those that wish to stay
longer by paying for additional time, without relying solely on a punitive fine-based system or
unduly extracting parking fees from residents or the economically disadvantaged (as addressed in
more detail below).
Geographies
The recommendation divides downtown into three parking zones:
• A Downtown Core bounded by University Dr. and San Antonio St. to the north and south
and Fredericksburg St. and Lyndon Baines Johnson Dr. (LBJ) to the west and east
• A North of Hopkins area running from Hopkins St. up to the Texas State University campus,
bounded on the west by Moore St. and on the east by CM Allen Pkwy
• A South of Hopkins area that extends south from Hopkins to one block south of the Moore
St / North St / San Antonio St intersection along San Antonio to Commanche, down
Commanche to Martin Luthur King Jr. Blvd (MLK), over to Guadalupe St, down Guadalupe St
to Cheatham St, and over to CM Allan Pkwy
A map is provided on the following page.

10

Expanded enforcement resources could potentially be funded in partnership with Texas State University.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 24 of 54

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 25 of 54

These zones are based on the existing demand and utilization patterns of downtown parking with a
goal of promoting more turnover along the most heavily trafficked blocks and incentivizing longerstay parkers to utilize parking spaces with less demand.
Free Time (Grace Period)
Because students, teachers, and guests of the University substantially increase the demand for
long-term parking near campus during the day, the Downtown Core and the North of Hopkins
area are recommended to have 30 minutes of free time during weekdays, while the South of
Downtown zone would allow 60 minutes of free time. During weekend and evening hours, all
areas would expand to 60 free minutes.
Resident Discount (Additional Free Time)
Residents that register their parking session would receive an additional 60 minutes free
parking time for a total of two-free hours (the same as current policy) in all areas excluding the
North and Core zones during the weekday peak when University demand requires additional
restriction. For this free time policy to be implemented and other objectives to be maintained, it is
imperative that the City transition to zoned enforcement to eliminate the “musical chairs”
described elsewhere herein. Additionally, the PAB recommends that the resident parking benefit of
one additional free hour be limited only to those that reside in properties within the City Limits that
pay property taxes which support the continued cost burden of maintaining the downtown onstreet parking spaces.
To prevent abuse, the additional free time afforded a resident would be limited to one use per day
per vehicle. For example, if a resident applied their additional 60-minutes of free time in the South
Zone at 10AM for a free, two-hour parking session and then returned to Downtown that evening for
dinner, their second parking session would be limited to the standard free time available for that
second parking session.
The registration for the additional free resident time should be integrated with existing city parking
programs that provide parking benefits to City residents, such as the City Park permit program, to
reduce administrative burden on the citizenry and staff. Any resident that enrolls in either program
should automatically receive the benefits of the other. As discussed further in the Technology
Recommendation, to receive the discount residents may need to register their stay and pay via
mobile app or website instead of an on-street pay station based on technical limitations.
On-Street Hourly Rates and Time Limits
Across all of downtown, the first paid hour (after the applicable free time) would be $1. In the
Downtown Core, where current parking space utilization frequently nears 100% and higher
turnover is valued given the concentration of retail businesses, additional hours would increase to
$2/hr, up to a maximum of 8.5 hours per parking session. Outside of the Downtown Core, the rate
would be $1/hr, up to a maximum parking session of 12 hours. Parking maximums would be
inclusive of any free-time applicable, and parking would be sold only in increments of $1 without
change or unused time refunds.
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 26 of 54

To discourage residents of downtown from using on-street parking for long-term vehicle storage
that reduces available space for downtown businesses and visitors, the Parking Advisory Board
recommends eliminating free overnight parking in the downtown. To accommodate special
circumstances and discourage intoxicated driving, overnight parking would continue to be allowed
for a fee. Overnight parking rates would allow parking from midnight to noon for $15 in the
Downtown Core and $10 in the other downtown parking zones.
Downtown Business Validation
While not required of any business, the Parking Advisory Board recommends the City deploy an
option for downtown businesses to offset part or all of any paid parking charges for their
customers. This is commonly referred to as “validating” a customer’s parking. The functionality of
this feature and deployment options are discussed in further detail in the Technology
Recommendation, but it is recommended that downtown businesses be able to purchase
validations on behalf of their customers at a 25% discount.
On-Street Permits
For downtown businesses (and a limited number of downtown residents11), the Parking Advisory
Board recommends a permit system in which businesses can pay $75/month to park in select onstreet spaces which have historically seen lower demand12. Permits will be allocated annually, with
one permit per qualified applicant until supply runs out. If there are more permits than applicants,
additional permits would be allocated by business size and available off-street parking —
businesses with no other parking options would be prioritized over those with some available
parking. On-street parking spaces would also be available to hourly parkers so on-street permit
holders would not be guaranteed an available spot, but an on-street permit would provide a
significant discount to the hourly parking rates.
The recommended permit rate of $75 / month is believed to be below market rate, but the Parking
Advisory Board recommends this reduced rate be maintained for at least the first two years to help
ease the transition for downtown employers and employees. While the limited number of resident
on-street permits will be valid 24/7/365, on-street business permits cannot be used for overnight
parking. All permits are non-transferable but may be reassigned to a different license plate no more
than once per month.
Off-Street Permits and the Employee Parking Pilot Program
In addition to the on-street permits, the Parking Advisory Board is also recommending that the city
implement a permit system across three of the four surface parking lots it currently owns or

Only residents of an existing 6-plex or smaller residential property without an off-street parking space for their unit
(See Map in Appendix, but generally available on Hutchinson St. between North St. and Blanco St.; Fredericksburg St.
south of San Antonio St. and north of MLK; MLK between Fredericksburg St. and Guadalupe St.; Guadalupe between MLK
and the railroad tracks; S LBJ in-between the railroad tracks; Edward Gary south of San Antonio St.; and, San Antonio St
between Edward Gary St and CM Allen Pkwy).
11
12

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 27 of 54

partially leases. Final rates may be subject to negotiation between city staff and its lot managers,
but the PAB recommends the lot at Hopkins St. and CM Allen Pkwy, which are currently used for
the Employee Parking Pilot Program (EP3), have an initial, non-subsidized price of $40/month for
unreserved spaces and $50/month for reserved spaces. Two other lots would only have unreserved
options, but both would be open to the EP3 as well. The lot at the corner of MLK and S LBJ is
recommended to have a $35/month target rate. Because it is in the higher demand Downtown
Core, the lot at Hutchinson St. and Guadalupe St. may more reasonably have a target price of
$80/month. The PAB recommends the EP3 would continue, with the Downtown PBD (in lieu of the
General Fund or TIRZ) subsidizing 50% of the cost for qualifying downtown businesses.
After the Kissing Alley construction project is completed, the Parking Advisory Board recommends
that the existing surface parking lot leased from Texas State University and adjacent to the current
Fire Station on the south side of Hutchinson between Guadalupe St. and LBJ become an hourly offstreet parking lot open to all with pricing that matches the North of Hopkins zone.
Key elements of the PABs recommendation are summarized in the following table, a more
complete version of which is included in the Appendix of this report.
CORE AREA
DAYS / TIMES
MONDAY - THURSDAY
FRIDAY - SATURDAY
SUNDAY
FREE TIME
SAN MARCOS RESIDENT BENEFIT
1ST PAID HR
ADD'L HOURS
MAX TIME
OVERNIGHT RATE (12AM TO NOON)

NORTH OF HOPKINS 2

SOUTH OF HOPKINS

8 AM - 5 PM

8 AM - 5 PM

8 AM - 5 PM

8 AM - MIDNIGHT

8 AM - MIDNIGHT

8 AM - MIDNIGHT

FREE

FREE

FREE

30 MINUTES

30 MINUTES

60 MINUTES

Add'l Free Hour after 5PM & Sat

Add'l Free Hour after 5PM & Sat

Add'l Free Hour (all times)

$1.00

$1.00

$1.00

$2.00

$1.00

$1.00

8 HRS

12 HRS

12 HRS

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

ON-STREET PERMIT 1

$75 per month

BUSINESS VALIDATION DISCOUNT

25% DISCOUNT OFF HOURLY RATES

ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES (ADA) 3
UTILITY ASSISTANCE / LIFELINE RESIDENTS 3
OVERNIGHT PARKING

FREE
FREE
NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT PAYMENT OR RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET PERMIT

As parkers become accustomed to the concept of a Parking Benefit District supporting the vibrancy
of Downtown, they may wish to contribute more than the parking rates charged. The Parking
Advisory Board recommends a donate button be included to allow parkers the ability to make a
direct contribution to the public infrastructure of downtown during their parking session.

Parking Manager Adjustments
The hours of enforcement and rates stated above are the Parking Advisory Board’s
recommendation for the initial implementation. Despite the care and thought that have been put

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 28 of 54

into this recommendation, it is possible that situations may arise in which modifications to the
hours and rates are necessitated for the efficient and equitable administration of the Parking
Benefit District.
As such, the Parking Advisory Board recommends that the Parking Manager be empowered to
modify the hours and rates within predefined ranges. The Parking Manager would be permitted to
take immediate action to change a rate; however, the Parking Manager must bring any changes to
the Parking Advisory Board for ratification at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Additionally, it is
recommended that City Council review the Downtown Parking Benefit District’s policies, including
hours and rates, no less than every three years.
The recommended Parking Manager Authorized Ranges are: Hourly Rates (free to $4/hr.); Permit
Rate ($5 to $150 per month); Maximum Hourly Parking Time (2 to 12 hours); Maximum On-Street
Permit Time (2 days to Unlimited); Hours of Enforcement (All Days/Hours, except Sunday).

Strategies to address spillovers and equity concerns
Spillovers
A major consideration for paid parking programs is what happens just outside the boundaries. If
boundaries are drawn too small, drivers park just outside the regulated area and walk creating
spillover problems for residents of those streets. To mitigate potential spillovers, the Parking
Advisory Board recommendation covers all of downtown (not just the highest occupancy areas)
and uses the recommended zones to adjust rates and regulations to match demand for different
areas. Even so, there could be potential spillover effects to the East Guadalupe, Dunbar, and
Heritage neighborhoods. For these neighborhoods, the Parking Advisory Board recommends that
revenues from Parking Benefit District be used to cover the Residential Parking Zone application
fees (if any) and ongoing permit costs of any residents that live within a Residential Parking Zone
established or proposed within a ¼ mile of the proposed Parking Benefit District. The decision to
form a Residential Parking Zone would continue to sit with the residents of each block per existing
City ordinance.
ADA accessibility
The Parking Advisory Board recommends that ADA spaces remain free, and that a vehicle with an
accessibility tag may remain parked in an ADA space up to the maximum time of the applicable
parking zone (i.e., 8 or 12 hours). If this results in difficulties for other ADA permit holders, the
Parking Manager is authorized to reduce the maximum time as per the Parking Manager Adjustment
policy.
Preserving access for low-income neighbors
The Parking Advisory Board recommends that residents who are already registered with the city for
other forms of assistance (e.g. residents of the housing authority, section 8 voucher recipients,

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 29 of 54

utility assistance, WIC) be emailed with a notification of the paid parking program and how to
register to secure their additional free hour. Staff should also go to complexes to assist in
registering. If desired by council, low-income neighbors could also be eligible to request either a
unique code to use for free downtown parking or a free permit attached to their license plate,
depending on what technology ends up being most effective at the time of implementation. As with
ADA, the free spaces would be valid up to the maximum time of the applicable parking zone. If this
results in difficulties for other permit holders, the parking manager is authorized to reduce the
maximum time as per the Parking Manager Adjustment policy.

Parking Benefit District Revenue & Expense Projections
With a comprehensive set of recent occupancy data and proposed downtown parking policies
grounded in desired outcomes for the community (and not fee extraction), the Parking Advisory
Board wished to test the feasibility of its recommendations with a financial model.

Existing Parking Operations
Finances
The PAB started by referencing the
existing financial picture of parking
operations developed over the past
several years as the City’s parking
management and enforcement
operations have become more robust.
Over the most-recent trailing 12 months
at the time of model creation, the City
was generating approximately $415,000
in annual parking-related revenues offset
by nearly $430,000 in annual parkingrelated expenses. While still a deficit
function, parking operations has had
marked improvement from the
approximately $10,000 per month loss
observed prior to the adopted parking
fine adjustments enacted in 2024.

Parking Operations Statement of Activties
Revenue
Paid On-Street Parking
Off-Street Lot - MLK
Off-Street Lot - Hutchison
City Park Lot
Parking Enforcement Fines
Uncollectable Fines
Special Event Fees
Residential Parking Permits
Other Operating Income
Revenue Subtotal

Expense
Depreciation Expense
Employee Parking Program
Fuel (Enforcement)
Maintenance and Repairs
Merchant Services (CC Fees)
Personnel
Postage
Residential PP Fees Paid
Signage
Software
Supplies
Telephone
Training
Uniforms
Expense Subtotal
Net

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

EXISTING BASELINE
T12 (Apr '25 - Mar '26)
$
$
$

4,642
19,205

$
$
$
$
$
$

600,772
(210,270)
245
414,594
EXISTING
Existing T12

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18,000
8,758
8,691
1,279
Unk
299,825
179
84,079
5,002
1,732
1,723
429,268

$

(14,674)

Page 30 of 54

City Park Paid Parking Pilot Program (CP5) and Potential Parks PBD
The existing baseline notably excludes revenues and expenses associated with the City Park Paid
Parking Pilot Program (CP5) launched in 2025 which began charging non-residents for parking at
the City Park lot adjacent the Pauline Espinosa Community Hall.
Over its first nine and a half months of operations, the CP5 generated approximate $210,000 in
paid parking fees and $75,000 in fines but has created significant administrative burden for the
Parks Department diverting substantial amounts of time up to the Director and Assistant Director
levels.
The Parking Advisory Board has recommended that the Parks Department apply to create a Parks
Parking Benefit District (PBD) to better isolate parking revenue generated in and around the City
Parks for use in improving, maintaining, and operating the Parks while also better spreading the
administrative burden of maintaining the CP5 program and making it permanent. Both Parks staff
and its advisory board have stated the intention to bring forward a Parks PBD application soon.
Given this expectation, the PAB elected to include a future Parks PBD revenues (based on observed
performance to date) and expected expanded parking personnel expenses (based on staff
feedback) into consideration for a more complete view of the revenues and expenses of the City’s
parking operations with both a Downtown PBD and a Parks PBD operating alongside broader
parking operations.

Downtown PBD Projections
General Methodology
To model the revenue potential of the recommend Downtown PBD policies, four common “time
blocks” were created based on observed patterns in the occupancy data, qualitative assessment,
and proposed parking rates:
• Time Block A (Overnight Parking): Midnight to 8PM, Monday - Saturday
• Time Block B (Weekday): 8AM to 5PM, Monday – Friday
• Time Block C (Saturday): 8AM to 5PM, Saturday
• Time Block D (Weekend Nights): 5PM to Midnight, Thursday – Saturday
For each time block, an informed assumption was made regarding the percentage of parkers that
would stay for total durations ranging from 30 minutes or less, up to the maximum allowed session
per proposed zone (e.g., 8 hours) to arrive at an average duration parked per Time Block per Zone.
By then applying the occupancy observed for each Time Block / Zone pair (discussed in Existing
Conditions section above) to those assumptions, an Implied Turnover was calculated for each
Time Block / Zone pair. The Implied Turnover was then used to calculate the total number of
parking sessions within each Time Block / Zone pair by multiplying it by the total number of spaces
in the applicable zone. Distributing those sessions back through the duration assumptions yields

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 31 of 54

the total number of cars parked in each duration rate band to generate the revenue for each Time
Block / Zone / Parking Stay grouping.
As an illustrative example, if Time Block B (Weekday) has 303 spaces in the Core zone that
turnover an average of 2.8 times during that nine hour time block and 25% of those parkers stay two
hours at a total rate of $3, then $636.73 would be generated from the parkers in the two-hour
duration rate band for that Time Block / Zone pairing. Summing together all the duration rate bands
and zones provides total revenue per Time Block occurrence which can then be used to create
weekly, monthly, and annual total revenue projections.
Core Assumptions
Perhaps the most significant assumption for the model is the percentage of parking sessions in
each duration rate band for each Time Block / Zone pair (e.g., on average, what percentage of
parked cars will park for 2 hours in the Core Zone on a typical Weekday). Without an existing paid
parking system or fixed, continuously-observing occupancy sensors, collecting this data is
impractical.
Additionally, because the Downtown PBD recommendation includes additional free time for City
residents, an estimation of the percentage of non-resident parkers on average in each Time Block /
Zone pair was also assumed.
For these assumptions, the PAB reviewed the estimations of staff that monitor downtown parking
daily and cross-checked the resultant Implied Turnover percentages against the spot-checked
turnover rates described above in the Existing Conditions section.
The parking occupancy observations downtown also indicate there is clear seasonality in
downtown parking demand, driven predominately by the Texas State University academic
calendar. A seasonality curve was generated in part by indexing to the month with maximum
occupancy observations (November) and reducing revenue in other months by the observed
reduction in average occupancy from those observations. Months where observational data was
not collected were estimated.
Seasonality
Weeks
Seasonality Adjustment
Unsubsidized Rev. Projected
Subsidized Rev. Projected

January
3.43
85%
$ 126,468
$ 111,693

February
4.00
85%
$ 147,546
$ 130,309

March
4.43
90%
$ 172,964
$ 152,757

April
4.29
75%
$ 139,487
$ 123,191

May
4.43
70%
$ 134,528
$ 118,811

June
4.29
65%
$ 120,889
$ 106,766

July
4.43
55%
$ 105,700
$ 93,352

August September October November December
Annual
4.43
4.29
4.43
4.29
3.43
50.14
60%
85%
90%
100%
85%
78%
$ 115,309 $ 158,085 $ 172,964 $ 185,983 $ 126,468 $ 1,706,392
$ 101,838 $ 139,617 $ 152,757 $ 164,255 $ 111,693 $ 1,507,039

Adjustments and Tuning
Several adjustments were made to the general methodology discussed above. Of course, it is not
known exactly how the recommended parking policies will impact occupancy and turnover across
the downtown. It is possible paid parking will reduce the overall occupancy of parking spaces in
some areas, but not others; It is possible increasing costs for longer-stays will encourage more
turnover on some blocks. It is possible the introduction of compliant longer-term parking options
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 32 of 54

(currently almost universally capped at 2 hours) will increase longer-term stays on some blocks.
Nevertheless, the percentage of vehicles estimated to currently be in each duration rate band by
staff was adjusted by the PAB based on reasonable expected behavioral change within each Time
Block / Zone pair. Further, for some pairs, the observed occupancy was adjusted downward based
on expected impacts of paid parking, such as the proposed elimination of free overnight on-street
parking reducing the overall occupancy of vehicles parked overnight.
Non-Modeled Variables
Certain policies that will ultimately influence total parking revenue were not integrated based on
the expectation that the contributed revenue will not be significant enough to influence decision
making. That includes revenue lost from granting free parking to economically disadvantaged
residents, accessible space parkers, and validation discounts provided to downtown businesses.
The revenue generated by on-street parking permits sold to local businesses has also not been
modeled. This should not minimize the importance of these policies, but they were deemed
prudent exclusions from the financial analysis to manage the overall complexity of the model.
Revenue Scenarios
As one of the objectives of a Downtown PBD is to relieve excess demand and create more
availability for customers of downtown businesses, some reduction in observed occupancy is
expected and even desired by stakeholders; and reduced occupancy may reduce revenue. As
such, three scenarios were generated simply by modifying the percentage of the observed
occupancy across all time zones and blocks by a set percentage. Expenses are assumed to be
fixed and a range of Revenue and Net Benefit are shown based the following:
• Pessimistic: 50% reduction in occupancy à $1,019,693 in Downtown PBD revenue
• Conservative: 25% reduction in occupancy à $1,522,039 in Downtown PBD revenue
• Aggressive: No reduction in occupancy à $2,024,386 in Downtown PBD revenue
Expenses
Annual expenses for base parking operations were largely scaled off the trailing 12-month
expenses through March 2026. Notable exceptions are Personnel Expense which are modeled to
increase based on the Staffing Recommendation herein from approximately $300,000 to $750,000
and Software-as-a-Service costs which are anticipated to increase to approximately $15,000 per
month. For each of the proposed PBDs, capital investments ($75,000 for the Parks PBD and
$250,000 for the Downtown PBD) were depreciated into the Statement of Operations based on 6%
weight-average-cost-of-capital (WACC) and a 5-year depreciation period.
Parking Benefit District Net Benefit Calculations
Finally, the model assumes that Base Parking operations consolidate general overhead and
enforcement expenses and collect all enforcement fines, while any PBDs collect any parking fees
and pay its dedicated capital expenses. As enforcement does not typically provide self-sustaining
revenue, this would result in a deficit balance for Base Operations which would be offset by a fee
each PBD would “pay” Base Operations for its services. The fee is modeled to be proportionate to

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 33 of 54

the Net Income generated by each PBD and is limited only to a total amount that balances Base
Parking Operations to $0.
Results
Exports of the Parking Operations Statement of Activities (i.e., Income Statement), the Time Block
model, and the Personnel/Staffing model are included in the Appendix.
Rounded totals are shown in the chart below for each scenario.
Downtown PBD
Paid Parking Projected Revenue / YR
Net Funds for DWTN Investment / YR

Pessimistic
$1,020,000
$475,000

Conservative
$1,520,000
$930,000

Aggressive
$2,025,000
$1,400,000

For the “Conservative” scenario, a full Parking Operations Statement of Activities is included below
with a version with category notes included in the Appendix.
Parking Operations Statement of Activties
Revenue
Paid On-Street Parking
Off-Street Lot - MLK
Off-Street Lot - Hutchison
City Park Lot
Parking Enforcement Fines
Uncollectable Fines
Special Event Fees
Residential Parking Permits
Other Operating Income
Revenue Subtotal

PROJECTION AFTER PBDS
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
$
$
$ 1,507,039
$
$
$
15,000
$
$
$
$
$
265,263 $
$
695,509
$
$
(173,877)
$
6,000
$
250
1,522,039

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
1,507,039
15,000
265,263
695,509
(173,877)
6,000
250
2,315,184

PROJECTION
Expense
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
Depreciation Expense
$
18,000 $
17,400 $
57,998
Employee Parking Program
$
$
30,000
Fuel (Enforcement)
$
13,037
Maintenance and Repairs
$
18,000
Merchant Services (CC Fees) $
18,476 $
9,284 $
53,271
Personnel
$
757,900
Postage
$
500
Residential PP Fees Paid
$
$
500 $
1,000
Signage
$
12,000 $
5,000 $
10,000
Software
$
180,000
Supplies
$
10,000
Telephone
$
3,000
Training
$
10,000
Uniforms
$
3,000
Expense Subtotal
$ 1,043,912 $
32,184 $
152,270

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
93,398
30,000
13,037
18,000
81,031
757,900
500
1,500
27,000
180,000
10,000
3,000
10,000
3,000
1,228,366

Net

$

(516,031) $

233,079

$

1,086,818

Base Ops Charge

$

516,031

$

(75,039) $

(440,992) $

Net to Benefit District

$

-

$

158,040

928,778

$

527,882

$

265,263

$

$

$

1,369,769

$

1,086,818

The conclusion of the financial assessment is that the recommended Downtown PBD parking
policies are feasible even under pessimistic revenue generation conditions. The Net (or

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 34 of 54

Excess) funds generated by a Downtown PBD could be significant, ranging from nearly
$500,000 to $1,400,000 – a sum that could provide material enhancements to the Downtown.

Technology Recommendation
Objective:
Reliable access to parking can be vital to residents and visitors moving about a city. A wellmanaged public curb and parking resources helps promote equitable public access to goods,
services, entertainment, and opportunity. Historically, San Marcos has not had the capacity to
manage a complete public parking system; but, as it has hired experienced parking personnel and
built organizational capability, the city has now positioned itself to move forward with the
development of a more robust parking management system. This s provides recommendations for
the technology needed to support this work, with the goal of providing seamless, efficient,
centralized, and transparent public parking services across the city.

Recommendation Summary
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Implement a Parking Management System that requires vendors to utilize Open APIs
o System modules include Enforcement, Payment, Permits, Validation, and Reporting
o Customer interfaces include a parking website, mobile app, and physical meters
Track parking sessions via LPR (license plate recognition) (i.e., no physical tags or tickets)
Enhance enforcement with ticket-by-mail and defined enforcement zones
Consolidate all payment interactions (e.g., fine payment, rate payment, permit payment) to
a consistent user interface experience
Ensure customer interfaces are natively bilingual (English-Spanish) with more languages via
automation
Deploy some physical parking meters for accessibility, but predominately configure system
for digital payments (i.e., web or mobile app)
Use pay-by-app and website to unlock modern parking features beyond meter capabilities
Acquire a stand-alone URL, such as ParkSMTX.com, that prioritizes clear customer
interactions and transactions. Link back to main City website for policy documentation
Maintain limited in-person and by-phone payment options
Merge all permit types (e.g. parks, residential, any future paid parking) into a single system
and interface for consistent and clear customer relationship management
Implement a validation module that allows the City to provide discounts (e.g., to residents)
and businesses to offset all or a portion of customer parking, if they so choose
Create Parking Management Dashboard(s) that track Key Performance Indicators that map
to the City’s Parking Management Goals

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 35 of 54

•
•
•

Create Parking Benefit Districts and a more robust series of general ledger codes to more
precisely track financial performance of municipal parking management
Continually monitor the market for new parking technologies, such as real-time fixed
occupancy sensors, that can provide multi-purpose benefits to Parking Management
Investigate innovations such as electronic user notification prior to citations and using lightduty, zero-emission vehicles (e.g., ebikes, eCab, LSV) for downtown LPR scans

Introduction to Parking Management System Technology
Parking management technology has evolved significantly since the days of chalking tires to
measure time-of-stay and feeding coins into single-space meters. Digitalization and automation
have become commonplace, but capabilities continue to rapidly evolve and the City must take
care in selecting both the specific features to deploy as well as the underlying system architecture.
This section is intended to catalogue the various components of a modern parking management
system and provide the Parking Advisory Board’s recommended technology, both hardware and
software, to modernize the City’s parking management.
Proprietary Systems vs. Open APIs
Generally, systems can be divided in two structures:
1. Proprietary Systems where a single vendor controls the entire suite of parking management
system modules (e.g., Enforcement, Payment, Permitting, etc.)
2. Open Application Programing Interfaces (API) Based Systems where system modules from
various vendors and service providers can share information and interoperate to create a
complete parking management system
A proprietary system delivers a single point of contact for vendor management, but typically with a
less diverse feature set and limited flexibly to adapt or improve the system with the agility often
required to tune parking policy. In practice, a hybrid system may be deployed where a primary vendor
provides most modules and interfaces but utilizes open APIs that allows for some modules,
interfaces, or features to be provided by another vendor.
The Parking Advisory Board (PAB) recommends the City implement a parking management
technology architecture based on Open APIs and standardized data formats. This approach
expands opportunities for parking operation to benefit from evolving best-in-class solutions
available for each module and minimizes lock-in to a single provider, regardless of how many
vendor(s) are ultimately awarded initial contract(s).
Systems & Features vs. Process
Generally, this document is focused on systems and features and not the specific processes for
implementation. For example, the PAB will recommend herein a type of physical meter and priority
features it should have; however, it will not detail the process flows of completing a payment at a
meter. Process flows can be vendor-specific and are best left for a future implementation phase.
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 36 of 54

Trade-offs and Priority Features
Even with a Parking Management System based on Open APIs, the City should be prepared that it is
unlikely every recommendation in this section can be feasibly deployed, even mixing and
matching best-in-class vendors for the various modules of the system.
Feature parity may eventually come to the industry, but parking management systems continue to
rapidly change, and industry-wide adoption of new features takes time. Further, the specific
configuration of some desired features described herein may not (yet) be available from any vendor
or require cost-prohibitive customizations. As such, certain “Priority” features are highlighted in this
document with an ❉ to help manage future decisions when trade-offs are identified.

Overview of Parking Management Systems Modules and Customer Interfaces
Parking Management System Modules
The Parking Advisory Board has identified the following modules of parking management systems:
• Enforcement: The enforcement module must integrate hardware and software for tracking
vehicle stays in real-time, issuing citations when required, and collecting data on utilization
of public parking facilities. It must be accurate and user-friendly for the City’s parking
technicians and managers. The enforcement module must also be able to track delinquency
for unpaid fees/rates/citations and assist with collections or other enforcement action, such
as immobilization. Frequently, this module forms the heart of the parking management
system, synthesizing information from other modules to apply the parking polices that apply
to each parking session.
• Payment: The payment module must be able to efficiently charge and receive payments
from motorists based on information received from other modules. The City will need to
receive payments for parking fines/penalties as well as fees/rates. It is important to provide
motorists multiple payment interfaces such as a website, mobile app, meter, and other inperson locations.
• Permit: The permitting module should allow the City flexibility to create programs which
provide certain vehicles special entitlement either to utilize restricted public parking
facilities or to use standard public parking facilities under special terms.
• Validation: A validation module may be required to provide third parties an opportunity to
pay for other motorists parking fees/rates (such as a business owner paying for its
customer’s time) or to provide discounts to motorists that qualify (such as residents).
• Reporting: A reporting module can be important to aggregate data from the various other
modules, commonly in the form of a dashboard. Monitoring and managing to key parking
performance indicators is critical to an efficient use of the public curb. A public dashboard
or data reporting can be useful in communicating the benefits and purpose of a robust
parking management program to citizens.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 37 of 54

Each of these modules will receive a section below with specific recommendations from the PAB.
Ideally, a single-vendor or platform would control each module as defined in this document.
Customer Interfaces
Motorists will need to interact with these modules indirectly through interfaces. The primary
interfaces contemplated by this document are:
•
•
•

Physical Meter (aka Pay-Station) ❉: A meter or pay-station enables a motorist to pay
parking rates in person at the time of parking.
Mobile App: A mobile app can increase user convenience, expand feature sets not available
at a meter, and accommodate motorist that do not have access to a PC or full web browser.
Parking Website❉: The City’s parking website should endeavor to allow a motorist to
complete most City parking transactions in one place. It should also contain or link to all
information available regarding public parking facilities and policies.

Text, phone, or in-person interactions should also be available but will typically direct the user (or
city staff member) to utilize one of the primary interfaces above to complete a transaction.

Enforcement Module
Existing Conditions
The City of San Marcos currently uses a License Plate Recognition (LPR) camera system for on-street
parking compliance. The LPR system uses cameras mounted on enforcement vehicles to
automatically read license plates and track parking durations. This technology helps ensure vehicles
comply with the 2- and 4-hour parking ordinance regulations by identifying and flagging vehicles that
have overstayed the permitted time limits. Parking Enforcement (a part of the City Code Compliance
department) utilizes a mobile license plate recognition system to patrol the on-street paid parking
and permit areas.
This LPR enforcement system captures the vehicle’s license plate info, GPS location, original time
stamp, and secondary time stamp. The time stamp data is automatically cross-referenced to the
current two- and four-hour regulations. If the time stamps violate the regulation, an enforcement
agent can then issue a violation via a handheld unit, which syncs directly with the system to ensure
accurate and efficient ticketing in real-time. Because the current configuration and policy do not
enforce parking zones (i.e., groups of spaces, such as one side of a block or multiple blocks),
motorists are able to move just one space over to avoid citation for an over-time stay. This has
contributed to a ‘cat-and-mouse’ game where violations of the intent of the City’s parking policy are
occurring without violating the letter of the law.
The hardware associated with enforcement includes 3 vehicles equipped with 2 mobile Motorola
LPR cameras per vehicle, 3 handheld IPS enforcement units, and 3 Dodge Durango patrol vehicles.
For the enforcement module software, the City’s current vendor is IPS. The City updated its LPR
camera and handheld hardware and signed a new contract with IPS and Motorola in May of 2025 and
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 38 of 54

it runs through April of 2030. The hardware package owned or leased by the City at any given time
can limit features available to the modules of the Parking Management System regardless of
software capabilities.
The City currently utilizes an enforcement payment portal that allows users to conveniently pay or
dispute violations online. This portal includes real-time access to violation details, timestamps, and
location data captured by the LPR enforcement system. This portal also includes an option to submit
disputes, providing supporting documentation or explanations for review. However, this portal is
separate from the City’s permitting portals and other parking tools.
Recommendations
• Enable ticket-by-mail to send minor violations to the DMV registered vehicle owner13,
especially during evening and late night enforcement time periods for enhanced safety of
enforcement personnel. Continue to post physical notices for any citations when possible
and for those that could start a process resulting in the immobilization, towing, and/or
impoundment of a vehicle ❉
•
•
•
•
•

•

Configure the enforcement system for Downtown to enforcement zones14 ❉
Utilize a common payment module and interface for the collection of both citations and
regular parking rates ❉
Prioritize interoperability of the enforcement module with the reporting module to track key
performance indicators of compliance with the City’s parking policies
Configure the enforcement system to produce utilization data by downtown zone15
For dedicated downtown patrol, exchange conventional vehicles for more nimble,
electrified vehicles mounted with LPR cameras (e.g., eBike, eCab, LSV). Consider multipurpose functions such as public safety patrol or fixed route circulator16
For motorists that register a parking account with the City, develop a courtesy notification
system that prompts any the account holder of an impending violation and provides the
motorist a brief opportunity to come into compliance to avoid citation17

In addition to having the potential to improve collections, this process enhances the safety of enforcement agents by
minimizing face-to-face confrontations with motorists, reducing the risk of disputes and potentially hostile interactions.
14
This would recognize a vehicle that parks within a zone and then moves to another space within the same zone during
the same enforcement period to be continuing a single parking session. This could be to the motorist’s benefit (e.g.,
come and go parking within a paid block of time) or to the benefit of the public (e.g., a motorist cannot circumvent City
policy simply by moving its vehicle a short distance to simulate the start of a new parking session.)
15
Utilization data collected by the enforcement module will likely be limited only to the hours of enforcement unless
additional technologies (such as fixed, mounted occupancy sensors) are deployed at additional expense.
16
Parking enforcement can retain a single larger vehicle for deploying immobilization devices.
17
This type of system may not currently be available from current service providers and a custom solution may be costprohibitive to implement.
13

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 39 of 54

Payment Module
Existing Conditions
Currently, the City primarily collects payments related to enforcement activities. The enforcement
payment portal allows users to conveniently pay or dispute violations online. This portal includes
real-time access to violation details, timestamps, and location data captured by the LPR
enforcement system. This portal also includes an option to submit disputes, providing supporting
documentation or explanations for review. Individuals can also pay their parking violations in
person at the San Marcos Municipal Court.
City Park Lot: In July 2025, the San Marcos launched a paid parking pilot program at the City Park
parking lot to better manage demand, improve turnover, and support long-term park system
sustainability. The program utilizes Flowbird payment kiosks to process both cash and credit card
transactions on-site with credit card payments securely processed through Chase Merchant
Services. In addition, PayByPhone offers a smartphone app and web-based payment options for
customers who prefer contactless transactions. City Park Resident parking permits are
administered through IPS Group for account management and tracking. For enforcement and
compliance, the City implemented fixed license plate recognition (LPR) technology through
Motorola’s Vigilant software in coordination with IPS to support citation issuance and collections.
Together, these integrated systems allow the City to evaluate performance metrics, user behavior,
and revenue performance while maintaining a customer-focused parking experience.
Residential Permit Zone Parking Program: The City of San Marcos utilizes IPS Group to
administer and collect payments for the City’s residential permit zone parking program. Through
IPS, residents can apply for, renew, and manage permits through a centralized online platform. The
system supports secure payment processing, eligibility verification, permit tracking, and reporting,
allowing the City to maintain accurate records while improving operational efficiency.
Off-Street Lot (Hutchison St): Parking agreements for the Hutchison Lot are coordinated and
managed through the City’s Main Street Department, which oversees tenant relations, space
allocation, and agreement compliance. Once agreements are executed, invoicing and payment
collection are administered through the City’s Finance Department to ensure accurate billing,
revenue tracking, and proper financial controls. In addition, the Parking Enforcement Department
utilizes Motorola’s Vigilant Solution and IPS system, including license plate recognition technology,
to efficiently enforce parking regulations within designated residential zones associated with the
program.
The disparity in these various payment systems and processes can lead to inefficiencies for City
staff and confusion for the public. It is viewed by the Parking Advisory Board as a current barrier to
efficient parking management.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 40 of 54

Further, the City has certain policies, such as an early-payment incentive or late-payment penalty,
that adjust the citation value based on the timing of payment. While initial implementation of these
policies required manual intervention by parking enforcement, the City’s recent transition to IPS for
mobile LPR enforcement processing is expected to allow application of these policies to be
automated.
General Recommendations
The Parking Advisory Board recommends that the City consolidate parking revenue processes
(e.g., fine payment, rate payment, permit payment) into a single payment module and
customer interface for consistency of user experience and efficiency of staff management.
Ideally, a single vendor can provide a sufficient solution for all payment process.
If multiple interfaces are required to deliver an optimized and comprehensive set of parking
management system capabilities, the City should develop a common payment landing page on its
webpage and app that at least consolidate starting-point URL links for the different types of
transactions (e.g., fine payment, rate payment, permit payment) that then deliver the user to the
required module/interface.
Additionally, the City should ensure all its customer-facing interfaces – but especially those
related to payment and enforcement – are natively bilingual with English and Spanish❉ with a
preference for adding broader language support via automated translation services that are now
widely available.
The City must determine whether to utilize a payment module that has the capability to synthesize
data from other modules or to simply function as a transaction processor. A system that can
synthesize data would be required to utilize information provided by other modules to calculate
and charge appropriate rates or citation penalties. A transaction processor would simply post and
facilitate payment for amounts furnished to it by another module and then communicate back
payment status to the enforcement and/or reporting modules.
Further, the City should either surface and mitigate limitations of its standard merchant services
provider or be flexible in utilizing another merchant service provider to ensure it can accept rapidly
adopted and more secure touchless (e.g., tap-to-pay, NFC) transaction methods.
Preliminary research indicates that payment modules with the most robust features are frequently
integrated with a common vendor for the enforcement module. Regardless as to whether it is the
payment module or the enforcement module that does applies policy logic, the Parking Advisory
Board recommends a single module be appointed to synthesize data from all module sources and
to implement the City’s parking policy framework to reduce system architecture complexity.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 41 of 54

Recommendations by Customer Interface
Options for collecting parking payments have evolved substantially since the coin-operated
individual meters utilized generations ago when San Marcos last had paid on-street parking. The
Parking Advisory Board recommends a variety of payment options for user convenience,
enforcement staff safety, ease of maintenance, and deployment of a robust feature set for
downtown parking management. This section will focus recommendations on each Customer
Interface.
This section assumes all Customer Interfaces will be configured to utilize a pay-by-license plate
methodology and does not require paper parking passes/license/tickets. Pay-by-text is not
recommended as a stand-alone interface that would involve charges via the motorist’s cellular
carrier; however, it is recommend as a tool to direct parkers to the City’s app or mobile-friendly
website.
Recommendations for Pay-by-Meter:
Physical meters are falling out of favor with customers and parking management entities in
exchange for more cost-effective, flexible, and convenient digital options. Physical meters are a
significant upfront expense (or lease commitment), require more intensive maintenance
requirements, and introduce the potential for vandalism. Despite these drawbacks, the Parking
Advisory Board believes maintaining some physical meter presence is important for equity
and accessibility. Use of meters should be continually evaluated with the expectation that over
time they may be entirely replaced with digital interfaces. The Parking Advisory Board
recommends:
•

Use multi-meters instead of single-space meters to manage cost, maintenance, and

•

security ❉
Meet ADA standards at and around each multi-meter, including routes from nearby
accessible parking spaces ❉

•

Limit deployment of meters to intersections to balance accessibility with cost ❉

•
•
•

Meet industry standard PCI compliance ❉
Complete a lease vs. buy analysis prior to procurement of meters
Supplement multi-meters with frequent signage directing motorists to the City’s parking
app or website via posting an URL, QR code18, and/or text number
Accept credit card (chip and NFC/contactless/tap-to-pay) and cash, but no coins
Do not make change for transactions
Do not offer refunds for unused time
Utilize solar power to reduce installation costs and increase sustainability

•
•
•
•

Citizens of other communities have been tricked by fake signage and QR codes that direct customers to a fraudulent
payment sites. The City must take care to prevent spoofing of text or QR codes by considering posting height, scheduled
signage reviews, and consumer advisories.
18

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 42 of 54

•
•

Accept codes for discount or validation
If possible, recognize license plates registered with special City entitlements (e.g., resident
discount, permit, need-based free parking) and apply applicable rates

Recommendations for Pay-by-App:
Parking apps hosted on platforms like the Apple App Store and Google Play store have continued to
gain popularity and parker familiarity. Most municipal parking applications are developed by a
third-party vendor and ‘white-labeled’ with a municipality’s custom branding. For example,
Passport Labs is the mobile app vendor for both Austin and San Antonio while ParkMobile provides
mobile app services to New Braunfels and other major Texas cities such as Dallas and Houston.
The City of San Marcos has partnered with established parking management systems vendors such
as FlowBird, IPS, and PayByPhone for its City Park paid parking pilot for various technologies but
not a mobile app. The Parking Advisory Board recommends:
•

Mirror core functionality of the multi-meter for payment at time of parking ❉

•
•
•

Provide access to validation module to process discounts ❉
Create a ‘white-label’ app that utilizes City of San Marcos branding
Facilitate motorist registration for parking programs (e.g., permits, resident entitlements)
or, at minimum, link-out to web portal
Develop iOS “App Clip” and Android “Instant Apps” that allow visitors to pay with their
mobile device without full app download

•

Recommendations for Pay-by-Website
The City’s current parking website is housed within the City’s overall website managed by
CivicPlus. The Parking Management page mixes a variety of objectives from general citizen
education to transactional processes, such as permit registration and citation payments. A mix of
platforms are used from basic web forms to third-party payment portals. The structure of the City’s
CivicPlus platform appears to create barriers to clear permitting and payment process flows. The
Parking Advisory Board recommends:
•

•
•

Create a standalone ParkSMTX.com (or similar) website that prioritizes clear customer
interactions (e.g., payments and permit registrations) and links back to the City’s CivicPlus
platform for policy documentation ❉
Create a phone-optimized (aka mobile responsive) webpage for basic payment processing
at the time of parking
Ensure a customer can complete any City parking transaction on the ParkSMTX website
that they could complete on at a physical meter or via the app

Recommendations for Other Payment Options
Parking citations can currently be paid in person at the San Marcos Municipal Court during regular
business hours, by mail, or by phone. The Parking Advisory Board recommends these options

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 43 of 54

be maintained with city staff members processing these payments utilizing the new payment
module for processing receipts.

Permit Module
Existing Conditions
A parking permit is a special entitlement that allows a vehicle to be parked in an otherwise
restricted zone or to be exempted from standard enforcement policies. Historically, permits were
physical hangtags or stickers displayed on the vehicle, but LPR has enabled permitting to become
digital as well.
The City already issues digital parking permits for its Residential Parking Zone (RPZ) program.
While registered vehicles are recognized digitally by the LPR enforcement system and entitled
through an automated process, up until the fall of 2025 the registration process for residents within
an RPZ was somewhat manual with an online form that is not directly tied to the parking
management system and proof of address documentation that had to be separately emailed to the
City Marshal’s office. As of the date of this document, the City is in the process of transitioning the
RPZ permit registrations into the same online portal utilized for the City Park permits furnished by
IPS. Additionally, guest hang-tags and temporary permits are still physical.
Recently, the City has also launched a paid parking pilot program for its City Park lot adjacent the
Pauline Espinosa Community Hall. City residents are effectively issued permits that exempt them
from the paid rate structure. The customer interface for this process is managed by IPS through
their thepermitportal.com interface.
Recommendations
With an expected increase in the types of permits and expected continued expansion of the RPZ
program, the Parking Advisory Board recommends:
•
•
•
•
•

All permits be integrated into a unified Permits Module
Migrate guest and temporary permits to LPR fully removing physical permitting
Require a platform that can facilitate multiple permit types per vehicle
Prioritize a platform that assists in validating applicant eligibility
For certain permits, consider auditing a selection of applications vs. dedicating the
extensive staff time to review every registration

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 44 of 54

Validation Module
Existing Conditions
Parking Validation refers to the process of a third-party, other than the motorist, paying for or
discounting the motorist’s parking session. This third party could be business or the City itself (in
which case, the City is simply foregoing revenue vs. expending cash).
To the motorist, validation may seem as though their parking is “free,” though the validating entity
(such as a business) is absorbing the cost of the motorist’s parking in full or at a discounted rate. In
the past, validation would frequently occur with gated parking and physical tickets through a
process of manual or digital stamping and a parking attendant’s review.
Today, systems are available that allow a third-party to issue payment or discount codes to a
parker to be input at the time of payment. Alternatively, some vendors provide web portals that
allow third parties to directly pay or discount a motorist’s parking fees on the motorist’s behalf by
refencing the license plate. In either case, the third parties decide how much of a motorist’s
parking fees it wishes to pay or discount.
The City has recently introduced its first validation processes as part of the City Park paid parking
pilot. Validation codes are offered to parties reserving the Pauline Espinosa Hall for events. These
codes may be entered into the physical kiosk on site operated by Flowbird. Additionally, the City
has offered the Lion’s Club Tube Rental located on site to set up a business validation account with
PayByPhone if it so chooses.
Recommendations
The Parking Advisory Board recommends that the city include validation to implement core
aspects of its overall paid parking recommendation, including resident discounts19, and to
support businesses that may want to share in their customer’s transportation costs.
•
•

Implement delayed payment processing and/or citation issuance to allow parkers and
the validating entity time to qualify the parker to validate their current parking session
If a validation system generates payment codes for validation, ensure:
o Businesses can offer one-time codes usable only for a single parking session
o The City can issue codes that are valid for an entire year or more
o A process is implemented to prevent code abuse, such as matching codes to
license plates or limiting the total discount or number of uses

While this recommendation contemplates something like a City-wide resident discount being accommodated via the
Validation Module, some vendors may be able to better implement that strategy via a Permit Module. Ultimately, the
naming convention is unimportant to the motorists.
19

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 45 of 54

Discount and validation are features that may only be able to be implemented via mobile app or
web interface. While not a core requirement, the Parking Advisory Board recommends the City
also investigate whether its selected physical meter can also accept validation codes.

Reporting Module
Existing Conditions
The City currently generates most of its reports from its enforcement system or by inputting
information manually into data tables and graphs utilizing programs such as Microsoft Excel.
These reports are used internally, and some are provided to the Parking Advisory Board.
Utilization data is only able to be collected using individual human observation, data entry, and
manual analysis. The same is true for turnover data. The result is that core performance data is
available only from a very limited number of moment-in-time snapshots. Data accuracy and trend
analysis are very difficult or impossible to complete. Staff is doing well to provide tracking with the
resources they have; however, a robust reporting module or other systems are not currently in
place.
Financially, the City collects and pays all parking related transactions out of or into the General
Fund. While some specific general ledger codes exist to isolate many parking-related transactions,
data must be manually aggregated and complied to create a Parking Management “income
statement.” Staff began compiling this quarterly financial report in 2024, which has been useful in
highlighting the cost of enforcement and the subsidy an enforcement-only parking management
approach has been requiring prior to the 2024 citation fine schedule revisions adopted by Council.
Lastly, from an enforcement and collections perspective, the City’s current system allows for the
generation of a listing of the total number of citations or warnings issued by month by violation
code and the associated total fine value issued (though not necessarily collected). Conversely,
collections are reported in bulk associated with the month payment is received. The result is that
only a rough approximation of collection rate can be assigned to any enforcement month and
compliance with specific parking policies is difficult to track or monitor outside of raw citation
counts.
Dashboard Recommendations
The Parking Advisory Board recommends that the City procure a Reporting Module that
includes a Parking Management Dashboard (or Dashboards) that can aggregate data from all
the other modules and continuously report out key performance indicators (KPIs) that align
with the City’s Parking Management goals.
A Parking Management Dashboard is a comprehensive, user-friendly platform that integrates data
from all Parking Management System modules into a consolidated view. It provides real-time

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 46 of 54

insights through customizable charts and graphs, enabling users to monitor compliance, revenue
trends, and other performance data immediately.
At a minimum a dashboard should be available for City Staff to monitor performance of the system,
make real-time adjustments within their authority, and report out to the Parking Advisory Board and
City Council periodically. Additionally, a public-facing dashboard could be configured as a tool to
offer the public transparency by displaying key metrics and trends to stakeholders and community
members. Some example data points for a parking Dashboard are shown in the table below. The
Parking Advisory Board recommends:
•

Develop a Parking Management Dashboard for Staff and Parking Advisory Board tracks KPIs

•

that map to the City’s parking management goals ❉
Create a public-facing Parking Management Dashboard that highlights performance and
the benefits of a robust parking management to the public

PARKING DASHBOARD ANALYTICS
Category

Description

Revenue !Monitoring
Avg Length of Parking Stay
Average Revenue per Transaction
Parking Revenue per Zone
Parking Meters Health Meter
Parking Revenue by Type
Violations Issued
Violation Revenue
Violation Collection Rate
Violations by Category!
On-Street Parking Permits Issued
On-Street Permits per Zone
Validation !Monitoring
Parking Project Goals
Parking Benefit District Projects

Tracks and analyzes total parking revenue across all payment sources and locations.
Measures the average duration of parking sessions based on payment records.
Calculates the average amount collected per parking payment, excluding ticketing.
Breaks down parking revenue by specific geographic areas or zones.
Monitors the operational status and functionality of parking meters.
Reports revenue distribution across different payment methods.
Tracks the total number of parking Violations issued within a given period.
Measures revenue generated from parking Violations paid during a given period..
Calculates the percentage of issued Violations that have been successfully paid during a given period.
Provides a breakdown of violations by ordinance category:
Counts the total number of active on-street parking permits.
Provides a breakdown of parking permits issued by zone.
Tracks the usage of parking validations issued by businesses or organizations.
Defines key objectives for parking management initiatives and tracks progress.
Tracks projects or programs funded by revenue, ensuring reinvestment in approved projects.

Finance-related Recommendations
Prior to initiating paid parking in areas throughout the City, the Parking Advisory Board
recommends that Parking Benefit Districts (PBD) be created to isolate revenue collected
within each PBD such that excess funds collected from parking management can be spent to
the benefit of the properties and public spaces within the applicable PBD. This approach to
parking management has been demonstrated across the country to materially improve areas
subject to parking demand pressures. It also demonstrates the value of the public curb and
highlights the investments the City can make back into the community though an efficient parking
management program.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 47 of 54

Further, the Parking Advisory Board recommends that the City work with its Finance
department to further isolate and categorize revenue and expense events related to the
Parking Management city-wide. These should include categorization of generalized expenses
(such as enforcement personnel that serve the entire City) as well as more specific costs that may
allocate solely to a particular area or region of the City (such as meters serving the downtown). The
City should then develop a methodology for allocating generalized parking expenses
proportionately to any PBD to fairly determine how much excess revenue, if any, each PBD has
created for reinvestment within its boundaries.
Once these coding enhancements are complete, the Parking Advisory Board recommends
that quarterly financial statements be reviewed with the Parking Advisory Board at an overall
Parking Fund level and individually for each PBD.
•
•

•

Create Parking Benefit Districts prior to launching paid parking in an area ❉
Create a Parking Management fund (or otherwise further isolate reporting within the
General Fund) and report quarterly statements on the financial health of parking operations
and each PBD, as applicable ❉
Integrate a high-level summary of financial performance into the Dashboard

Utilization Data-related Recommendations
While some collection of utilization data (e.g. occupancy, turnover) can and should be collected by
a modern, mobile LPR system, that data can be subject to accuracy and usability challenges given
the realities of a camera that is in continuous motion and relies on lines of sight that may be
periodically obstructed. As funding allows, either from excess PBD revenues not slated for other
priorities, grants, or otherwise, the City may consider fixed occupancy sensors from vendors such
as Cleverciti.
Unlike mobile LPR cameras that monitor for violations of parking policy, fixed occupancy sensors
focus on the entire space and not the license plate of a parked vehicle. By maintaining a consistent
view of a block or other group of spaces, they system can report occupancy and turnover data
continuously and accurately without the need for significant data analysis or assumptions.
Beyond those benefits, in their full implementation, occupancy sensors can also be utilized for
motorist wayfinding to parking and to communicate parking availability. Displays at intersections
can direct motorists to vacant spaces to enhance customer satisfaction and reduce circling that
negatively impacts traffic, road user safety, and air quality.
System-Wide Data Privacy, Security, and Open API Requirements
The Parking Advisory Board recommends each component of the City’s parking management
system—including enforcement, payment, permitting, validation, reporting, and all customerfacing interfaces—be designed and deployed with data privacy and security as foundational
requirements.
Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 48 of 54

Each module processes sensitive information such as license plate data, payment credentials,
account information, location data, and transactional records. All systems will be required to
comply with applicable federal and state data protection laws, Payment Card Industry Data
Security Standards (PCI DSS) where applicable, and recognized cybersecurity best practices. It is
recommended that data be encrypted and protected through secure authentication mechanisms
and governed by role-based access controls with comprehensive audit logging.
Consistent with the Parking Advisory Board’s recommendation to adopt an Open API–based
system architecture, all data exchange between modules and third-party services are required to
occur through secure, well-documented APIs that follow industry standards for authentication,
authorization, and data minimization. APIs must support secure token-based access, granular
permissioning, and the ability to restrict or revoke access without disrupting the broader system.
Open APIs are intended to enable interoperability and vendor flexibility—not to expand data
exposure—and should be implemented in a manner that preserves system integrity and prevents
unauthorized access.
The Parking Advisory Board recommends the City of San Marcos retain full ownership,
control, and governance authority over all data generated or processed by any parking
management system component, regardless of vendor or module, and no vendor shall claim
ownership or use such data for any secondary purpose, including resale, marketing,
analytics, or product development, without the City’s explicit written authorization. The City
shall also retain the unrestricted right to access, export, and delete its data at any time. including
upon contract termination, and Open APIs are required to support data portability using
standardized formats to minimize vendor lock-in.
Customer-facing interfaces—including physical meters, mobile applications, and web portals—
shall adhere to privacy-by-design principles and collect only the minimum data necessary to
complete a transaction or provide a service. Clear, accessible privacy disclosures must be
provided to users, describing what data is collected, how it is used, and how long it is retained.
Data retention schedules should be defined by module and enforced consistently across all
integrated systems.
Together, these requirements will ensure that the City’s Open API parking management
architecture remains secure, privacy-conscious, interoperable, and aligned with responsible
municipal data stewardship.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 49 of 54

Parking Management Staffing Recommendation
The City of San Marcos’ current parking team includes a Parking Manager (vacant as of May 2026)
providing strategic oversight and direction, a Parking Enforcement Coordinator, and four full-time
equivalent (FTE) Parking Enforcement Technicians. Historically, these functions are assigned from
the City’s Public Works (parking management) and City Marshal (parking enforcement)
departments.
As the City of San Marcos transitions from free, time-restricted parking to a more managed system
with Parking Benefit Districts and paid zones in high-demand areas, the scale and complexity of
daily operations will grow significantly. Expansion in parking management tasks and oversight has
already been observed as the City has launched its first paid parking lot at City Park – where the
City Parks and Recreation department has also allocated staff resources.
While the Parking Manager will continue to guide policy and strategy, additional parking
management staff will be needed to ensure smooth operations, customer service, and
accountability as the City’s parking programs expand. Some expansion of enforcement team
members is also anticipated to support compliance with the City’s parking policies.
Operational Needs Driving Additional Staff
1. Permit Processing: Reviewing and approving residential zone, on- and off-street permits,
managing renewals, and maintaining accurate records.
2. Revenue Collection: Collecting and reconciling funds from pay stations, preparing
deposits, and ensuring financial accountability.
3. Customer Service: Assisting residents, visitors, and businesses with parking inquiries,
troubleshooting payment issues, and providing timely support.
4. Data & Reporting: Compiling utilization, enforcement, and revenue data to support the
Parking Manager and prepare reports for the Parking Advisory Board.
5. Equipment & Infrastructure Maintenance: Monitoring pay stations, signage, and other
infrastructure, ensuring reliable operations and vendor coordination.
6. Expanded Coverage: As paid parking expands into more days and longer hours, staff
support will be needed to provide consistent operational coverage.
7. Additional Parking Enforcement Support: As Parking Benefit Districts (PBD) are created,
dedicated enforcement staff may be justified to serve specific geographies or expanded
hours of enforcement. Additional staffing may also be required to respond effectively to
peak demand periods, special events, and permit-zone enforcement requirements
Current Position Descriptions
1. Multimodal Parking Initiatives Manager
a. Oversees all citywide parking management strategies and initiatives
b. Guides the development and implementation of long-term parking management
strategies, aligning operational goals with the City’s mobility, sustainability, and
downtown development objectives.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 50 of 54

c. Coordinates with all City departments, boards, vendors, and community
stakeholders to improve parking compliance, enhance user experience, and
promote sustainable initiatives
d. Ensures compliance with City ordinances, state laws, and administrative
procedures related to parking enforcement and appeals.
e. Analyzes parking data and revenue trends to develop operational reports,
performance metrics, and recommendations for program improvements.
f. Currently 1 FTE that reports to an Assistant Director of Public Works
2. Parking Coordinator
a. Oversees the planning, coordination, and daily operations of the City of San
Marcos Parking Program and wrecker services.
b. Develops and updates Parking Division policies, procedures, and training programs.
c. Supervises parking personnel, including scheduling, performance evaluation, and
payroll.
d. Manages wrecker service operations, investigates violations and complaints,
maintains inspection records, and coordinates with TDLR.
e. Provides support to city departments regarding parking and towing issues; available
for limited after-hour callouts.
f. Performs administrative tasks such as data entry, reporting, and permit processing;
maintains radar signage and related data.
g. Currently 1 FTE that reports to City Marshal
3. Parking Enforcement Technician
a. Enforces timed parking in the City’s downtown area; observes and monitors timed
parking; issues citations accordingly.
b. Monitors for illegal parking in handicap areas and fire lanes; prepares and issues
related citations.
c. Boots/Barnacle vehicles; coordinates the towing of illegally parked and/or
abandoned vehicles.
d. Assists Parking Coordinator as necessary or required and wrecker enforcement
issues.
e. Effectively communicates with dispatch over radio for calls for service pertaining to
Parking.
f. Currently 3 FTE (3 full-time, 2 part-time) that reports to the Parking Coordinator
Public Works staff outlined two new roles that would likely be required to manage the PBDs
effectively with the following descriptions.
New Position Descriptions
1. Parking Program Administrator (Est. $75,000 to $80,000 fully loaded with benefits)
a. Supports daily operations and customer service.
b. Manages permits and reporting.
c. Serves as a primary contact for public inquiries.
d. Provides critical support to effectively roll out and sustain a comprehensive paid
parking management strategy
2. Parking Maintenance Technician (Est. $50,000 to $55,000 fully loaded with benefits)
a. Handles inspections, collections, and upkeep of pay stations and signage.
b. Reconciles and secures revenue.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 51 of 54

c. Coordinates with vendors on service and repairs.
Ultimately, the Public Works and Enforcement departments provided the PAB input into the
expected total staffing needs to serve this recommend which would include: one (1) Multimodal
Parking Initiatives Manager, one (1) Parking Program Administrator, one (1) Parking Maintenance
Coordinator, one (1) Parking Enforcement Coordinator, five (5) full-time Parking Enforcement
Technicians, and three (3) part-time Parking Enforcement Technicians. These recommendations
and current/expected salaries were incorporated into the Personnel expense in the financial model
and analysis herein.

Funding Strategy
These positions will be supported directly by reimbursements from the Parking Benefit Districts out
of their revenues. This ensures the overall parking management function is self-sustaining and
does not place any additional burden on the City’s general fund. As parking revenue grows, future
staffing investments will directly support the integrity, transparency, and long-term success of the
City’s parking program.

Staffing Conclusion
The launch of Parking Benefit Districts and a more sophisticated management of public parking
resources introduces new responsibilities that cannot be managed effectively by the existing
parking team structure. Addressing staff requirements alongside an expansion of parking programs
will ensure the program has the staffing capacity to operate efficiently, maintain public trust, and
deliver on the City’s broader mobility and economic goals.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 52 of 54

Implementation Timeline
If the council approves PAB’s recommendation to implement paid parking downtown, the PAB
recommends at least a 6-month procurement timeline, given the complexity of the technology
required to implement an effective parking management program. The PAB also recommends that
full implementation be in place for the start of the fall semester at Texas State after a soft-launch in
the preceding summer. Given these timing recommendations, the PAB recommends beginning
paid parking at the earliest in Fall 2027. This section lays out PAB’s recommendation for the full
implementation timeline.
After making its recommendation and in advance of council’s consideration, the PAB will first seek
input from downtown stakeholders in summer 2026, including the Main Street Advisory Board,
Downtown Association, the Parks and Recreation Board, the South Square Collective, the
Chamber, the Hays Caldwell EDC, and Texas State. Based on their feedback, the PAB may revise
its recommendation resolution. The goal of this step is to ensure the proposal has broad support
from the downtown community.
In fall 2026, the PAB will work with City staff on a more general education campaign about the
current policies and enforcement. This will include outreach to Texas State students, particularly at
orientation, as well as social media posts and outreach to local businesses. Enforcement has
shifted considerably over the last few years, including the addition of the windshield-based
immobilization device (known as Barnacles), introduction of some 4-hour spaces in low-demand
areas, and the employee parking pilot program. There are also potential additional changes to the
parking ordinances currently under review, which would also be part of this campaign if approved.
The goal of this campaign is to bring awareness of current parking policy and test the ability of the
city and committee to communicate changes in advance of a major new policy such as the launch
of the Downtown PBD.
If the Council chooses, we anticipate the recommendation resolution being brought before it in the
fall of 2026. Council approval would set up spring 2027 for three concurrent processes: a new
education campaign on the policy (using lessons learned from the fall), hiring of additional staff
required to administer the PBDs, and technology/software/services procurement by city staff. Paid
parking downtown could be soft launched in summer 2027, during the busy river season, and then
a full launch would coincide with the start of the Fall 2027 semester.
This timeline is dependent on council approval sometime in 2026. If approval does not come until
spring 2027, the timeline could be compressed if staff believe procurement can be sped up or
deferred to Winter 2028. Regardless of final launch date, PAB recommends that sufficient time be
allocated for an education campaign, and that full deployment occur when Texas State is in
session to maximize the potential program benefits.

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 53 of 54

Downtown Parking Benefit District (PBD) Implementation
Task
PAB Downtown Parking Benefit District (PBD) Recommendation Discussion Item
PAB Downtown PBD Recommendation Vote
PAB Downtown PBD Informational Feedback Presentations

2026
2027
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept

- Parks Board (meets 3rd Thursday at 5:30, meets June 18th doesn’t meet in July)
- Main Street Board (meets 3rd Wednesday at 5:30)
- Downtown Association
- South Square Collective
- Texas State University (informal)
- Chamber/Hays Caldwell EDC (Informal)
PAB Downtown PBD Recommendation Sent to Council for Discussion / Approval
PAB Evaluation of Downtown PBD Feedback & Updates, as necessary
PAB Outreach Committee Education Campaign on current policy and enforcement
Parking Technology / Services Procurement
PAB Outreach Committee Education Campaign on Roll Out of Downtown PBD
Summer 2027 Downtown PBD - Soft launch
Fall 2027 Downtown PBD - Full launch

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Page 54 of 54

APPENDIX A
Downtown Parking Benefit District Map

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

APPENDIX B
Downtown Parking Benefit District Rate Table

CITY OF SAN MARCOS RECOMMENDED PARKING RATES
CORE AREA
DAYS / TIMES
MONDAY - THURSDAY
FRIDAY - SATURDAY
SUNDAY
FREE TIME
SAN MARCOS RESIDENT BENEFIT
1ST PAID HR
ADD'L HOURS
MAX TIME
OVERNIGHT RATE (12AM TO NOON)
ON-STREET PERMIT 1

NORTH OF HOPKINS 2

8 AM - 5 PM

8 AM - 5 PM

8 AM - 5 PM

8 AM - MIDNIGHT

8 AM - MIDNIGHT

8 AM - MIDNIGHT

FREE

FREE

FREE

30 MINUTES

30 MINUTES

60 MINUTES

Add'l Free Hour after 5PM & Sat

Add'l Free Hour after 5PM & Sat

Add'l Free Hour (all times)

$1.00

$1.00

$1.00

$2.00

$1.00

$1.00

8 HRS

12 HRS

12 HRS

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$75 per month

BUSINESS VALIDATION DISCOUNT

25% DISCOUNT OFF HOURLY RATES
3

ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES (ADA)
UTILITY ASSISTANCE / LIFELINE RESIDENTS 3
OVERNIGHT PARKING
PARKING MANAGER AUTHORIZED RANGES 4
DAILY RATES
PERMIT RATES
MAX TIME (HOURLY)
MAX TIME (ON STREET PERMIT)
TIME OF DAY

SOUTH OF HOPKINS

FREE
FREE
NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT PAYMENT OR RESIDENTIAL ON-STREET PERMIT

FREE TO $4 PER HOUR
$5 TO $150
2 TO 12 HOURS
2 DAYS TO UNLIMITED
All DAYS / HOURS, EXCEPT SUNDAY

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

CITY OF SAN MARCOS RECOMMENDED PARKING RATE NOTES
¹ON-STREET PERMIT NOTES
RESIDENT PERMIT ELIGIBILITY: EXISTING 6-PLEX OR SMALLER WITHOUT OFF-STREET PARKING. MAX OF 1 SPACE PER UNIT; VALID 24/7/365 ONLY ON BLOCK OF RESIDENCE
BUSINESS PERMIT ELIGIBILITY: BUSINESSES WITH CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHIN PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICT; NOT VALID OVERNIGHT
NO CONSECUTIVE DAY LIMIT INITIALLY (UNLESS MODIFIED UNDER PARKING MANAGER AUTHORIZED RANGES)
NON-TRANSFERABLE BUT MAY BE RE-ASSIGNED BY PERMIT HOLDER TO A DIFFERENT LICENSE PLATE NO MORE THAN ONCE PER MONTH
PERMITS ARE VALID FOR 1-YEAR; PAID MONTHLY
ANNUAL APPLICATION PROCESS PRIORITIZES ONE SPACE PER QUALIFYING APPLICANT AND THEN ALLOCATES ACCORDING TO PROPERTY SIZE & OFF-STREET PARKING OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT
PERMIT RATES PROJECTED TO BE BELOW-MARKET FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS TO ASSIST IN TRANSITION TO NEW PARKING REGULATIONS
2

HUTCHISON OFF-STREET LOT: AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRE STATION RENOVATIONS, LOT WILL TRANSITION TO AN HOURLY PAID OFF-STREET LOT AT "NORTH OF HOPKINS" ZONE RATES

3

ADA & UTILITY ASSISTANCE FREE PARKING: MAX PARKING TIME WILL MATCH THE MAX TIME PER ZONE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF PARKED IN AN ADA SPACE WITHIN THE CORE ZONE, THE MAX FREE TIME WILL BE 8 HOURS

4

PARKING MANAGER AUTHORIZED RANGES: ALL RATE CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PARKING ADVISORY BOARD AT NEXT MEETING AND REVIEWED BY CITY COUNCIL NO LESS THAN EVERY 3 YEARS

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

APPENDIX C
Occupancy Data Summaries

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Collection Date Overview
Years (Date)

Date

Time

Sum of Occupancy

2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2024

2/15/24
2/16/24
2/20/24
2/21/24
2/22/24
2/23/24
2/26/24
2/27/24
2/29/24
3/21/24

10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
11:00 AM
7:00 PM

75%
71%
77%
80%
79%
71%
67%
82%
78%
75%

2024

3/22/24

7:00 PM

85%

2024
2024
2024
2024
2024
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025

3/23/24
3/28/24
7/30/24
8/1/24
9/4/24
9/13/25
9/16/25
9/18/25
9/18/25
9/19/25

1:00 PM
12:00 PM
10:00 AM
12:00 PM
12:00 PM
8:00 PM
6:00 AM
6:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM

88%
81%
49%
53%
78%
74%
21%
21%
74%
78%

2025

9/23/25

6:00 AM

28%

2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025

9/25/25
9/26/25
9/26/25
9/27/25
9/30/25
10/2/25
10/2/25
10/3/25
10/3/25
10/4/25
10/4/25

6:00 AM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
8:00 PM
6:00 AM
6:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM
1:00 PM

24%
75%
80%
62%
22%
23%
79%
75%
43%
91%
71%

2025

10/7/25

6:00 AM

21%

2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025

10/9/25
10/9/25
10/10/25
10/10/25
10/11/25
10/11/25
10/11/25
10/14/25

6:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM
1:00 PM
8:00 PM
6:00 AM

22%
68%
73%
73%
93%
93%
99%
20%

2025
2025
2025

10/16/25
10/16/25
10/17/25

6:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM

22%
48%
90%

2025

10/18/25

12:00 AM

90%

2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025

10/18/25
10/23/25
10/23/25
10/24/25
10/25/25
10/28/25
10/30/25
10/30/25
11/1/25

8:00 PM
6:00 AM
8:00 PM
8:00 PM
8:00 PM
6:00 AM
6:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM

58%
28%
67%
85%
65%
20%
21%
74%
92%

2025

11/1/25

1:00 PM

89%

2025

11/1/25

8:00 PM

71%

2025

11/4/25

6:00 AM

22%

2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025
2025

11/6/25
11/7/25
11/7/25
11/8/25
11/13/25
11/14/25
11/20/25
11/20/25
11/21/25

6:00 AM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM
6:00 AM
8:00 PM
12:00 AM

21%
93%
75%
87%
73%
89%
27%
74%
86%

All Observations except 6AM
Time

(Multiple Items)

Removed 6AM

Proposed Zone
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core

Type of Regulation
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Location
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
N. Guadalupe
N. Guadalupe
N. LBJ

Cross Street¹
Cross Street²
Hopkins
Hutchison
Guadalupe
Fredericksburg
LBJ
Guadalupe
FredericksburgGuadalupe
Guadalupe
N. LBJ
Hutchison
Hopkins
University
Hutchison
Hopkins
Hutchison

Sum of Occupancy
55%
76%
95%
62%
81%
74%
79%
96%

Core

2 Hour

N. LBJ

Hutchison

University

94%

Core
Core
Core
Core
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio
San Antonio
Burleson
CM Allen
Comanche
Concho
Edward Gary
Edward Gary

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Mary St
University
Lindsey
N. LBJ
Hutchison
Hutchison

San Antonio
Hopkins
Fredericksburg
LBJ
Moore
Hopkins
Pat Garrison
Guadalupe
Hopkins
University

82%
86%
90%
67%
42%
44%
96%
93%
85%
71%

North

2 Hour

Fredericksburg

Pat Garrison

Lindsey

North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Lindsey
Mary St
Moon St
N. Guadalupe

Edward Gary LBJ
North
Comanche
CM Allen
Edward Gary
Comanche
North St
FredericksburgComanche
N. LBJ
Edward Gary
Moore
North
Comanche
Fredericksburg
Hutchison
Burleson
University
Hutchison
Concho
University

106%
23%
77%
95%
62%
85%
61%
77%
43%
48%
91%

North

2 Hour

N. Guadalupe

Concho

Woods

73%

North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

N. LBJ
N. LBJ
North St
North St
North St
Pat Garrison
North St
S. Guadalupe
S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio

Concho
University
Burleson
Hopkins
Hutchison
Comanche
Harvey
MLK
MLK
San Antonio
Edward Gary

Woods
Concho
Lindsey
Hutchison
Burleson
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Railroad Tracks
San Antonio
MLK
LBJ

83%
120%
98%
79%
59%
101%
33%
76%
53%
86%
93%

South

2 Hour

San Antonio

FredericksburgComanche

89%

South
South
South
South
South
South
Grand Total

4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour

Edward Gary
Edward Gary
MLK
San Antonio
San Antonio
San Antonio

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
CM Allen
Comanche
Harvey

77%
25%
59%
54%
71%
4%
76%

Overall Block Band Analysis, excluding 6AM
Threshold
90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

# Blocks
12
6
11
13
6
2
50

% of Blocks
24%
12%
22%
26%
12%
4%
100%

San Antonio
LBJ
Fredericksburg
Edward Gary
North St
North St

77%

COMPARE TO KIMLEY-HORN PEAK (Weekday Afternoon "Peak")
Time

2:00 PM

Week Day

(Multiple Items)

Proposed Zone
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core

Type of Regulation
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Location
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
N. Guadalupe
N. Guadalupe
N. LBJ

Cross Street¹
Cross Street²
Hopkins
Hutchison
Guadalupe
Fredericksburg
LBJ
Guadalupe
FredericksburgGuadalupe
Guadalupe
N. LBJ
Hutchison
Hopkins
University
Hutchison
Hopkins
Hutchison

Sum of Occupancy Spaces
29%
43%
89%
90%
89%
88%
94%
98%

7
18
16
15
14
12
18
33

Core

2 Hour

N. LBJ

Hutchison

University

99%

27

Core
Core
Core
Core
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio
San Antonio
Burleson
CM Allen
Comanche
Concho
Edward Gary
Edward Gary

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Mary St
University
Lindsey
N. LBJ
Hutchison
Hutchison

San Antonio
Hopkins
Fredericksburg
LBJ
Moore
Hopkins
Pat Garrison
Guadalupe
Hopkins
University

75%
94%
89%
64%
90%
78%
99%
91%
91%
90%

26
41
29
50
12
27
17
14
22
23

North

2 Hour

Fredericksburg

Pat Garrison

Lindsey

100%

9

North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Lindsey
Mary St
Moon St
N. Guadalupe

Edward Gary LBJ
North
Comanche
CM Allen
Edward Gary
Comanche
North St
FredericksburgComanche
N. LBJ
Edward Gary
Moore
North
Comanche
Fredericksburg
Hutchison
Burleson
University
Hutchison
Concho
University

119%
19%
79%
76%
92%
96%
74%
100%
99%
83%
86%

4
13
18
8
9
25
13
11
17
20
9

North

2 Hour

N. Guadalupe

Concho

Woods

96%

7

North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

N. LBJ
N. LBJ
North St
North St
North St
Pat Garrison
North St
S. Guadalupe
S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio

Concho
University
Burleson
Hopkins
Hutchison
Comanche
Harvey
MLK
MLK
San Antonio
Edward Gary

Woods
Concho
Lindsey
Hutchison
Burleson
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Railroad Tracks
San Antonio
MLK
LBJ

93%
139%
88%
82%
84%
98%
10%
50%
31%
85%
64%

20
8
10
7
11
12
5
20
12
46
14

South

2 Hour

San Antonio

FredericksburgComanche

80%

38

South
South
South
South
South
South
Grand Total

4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour

Edward Gary
Edward Gary
MLK
San Antonio
San Antonio
San Antonio

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
CM Allen
Comanche
Harvey

84%
23%
14%
48%
78%
4%
78%

11
32
9
7
9
13
17

San Antonio
LBJ
Fredericksburg
Edward Gary
North St
North St

K-H Compare Block Bands
Threshold

# Blocks

% of Blocks

90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

19
7
11
4
4
5
50

38%
14%
22%
8%
8%
10%
100%

Weekday Afternoon Peak Comparison
2018 Kimley-Horn
2024-2025 City/TXST
Overall Occupancy
Blocks >85%
% Spaces

70%
19
42%

78%
26
50%

# spaces
332
101
221
97
44
72
866

% spaces
38.32%
11.70%
25.50%
11.15%
5.02%
8.32%
100.00%

Zone Analysis
Time of Day (All Weekday Observations)
Date
Week Day

(All)
(Multiple Items)

Sum of Occupancy
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
Grand Total

Time

Date
Week Day

(All)
(Multiple Items)

Sum of Occupancy
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
Grand Total

Time

6:00 AM
12%
27%
33%
23%

10:00 AM
70%
84%
41%
68%

11:00 AM
78%
94%
52%
78%

12:00 PM
78%
78%
48%
71%

2:00 PM
82%
88%
56%
78%

7:00 PM
88%
82%
68%
80%

8:00 PM
73%
64%
77%
70%

Time of Day (Friday Midnight + All Saturday Observations)

12:00 AM
96%
69%
95%
85%

1:00 PM
92%
79%
87%
85%

8:00 PM
73%
67%
78%
72%

Day of Week (All Observations except 6AM)
Date
Time

(All)
(Multiple Items) Removed 6AM

Sum of Occupancy
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
Grand Total

Week Day
Monday

Tuesday
63%
89%
39%
67%

73%
82%
44%
69%

Wednesday Thursday
Friday
83%
74%
93%
73%
51%
65%
79%
71%

87%
67%
80%
77%

Saturday
Grand Total
85%
81%
75%
73%
89%
74%
82%
76%

Observations During Current Regulated Time (Monday - Friday; 8AM to 5PM)
Date
Time

(All)
(Multiple Items)

Sum of Occupancy
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
Grand Total

Week Day
Monday

Tuesday
63%
89%
39%
67%

73%
82%
44%
69%

Wednesday Thursday
Friday
83%
77%
93%
85%
51%
49%
79%
73%

78%
76%
54%
71%

Grand Total
76%
84%
48%
72%

After Hours = Thursday, Friday, and Saturday (7/8 PM and Midnight)
Date
Time

(All)
(Multiple Items)

Sum of Occupancy
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South

Week Day
Thursday

Grand Total

Friday
72%
66%
76%

88%
65%
84%

70%

78%

Saturday
Grand Total
82%
82%
73%
68%
89%
84%
80%

Early Morning = 6AM Observations Only
Date
Time

(All)
6:00 AM

Sum of Occupancy
Proposed Zone
Core
North
South

Week Day
Tuesday

Thursday
12%
26%
31%

12%
28%
34%

Grand Total
12%
27%
33%

77%

Current Regulated Time Observations by Block
Time

(Multiple Items)

Week Day

(Multiple Items)

Proposed Zone
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core

Type of Regulation
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Location
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
N. Guadalupe
N. Guadalupe
N. LBJ

Cross Street¹
Hopkins
Guadalupe
LBJ
Fredericksburg
Guadalupe
Hutchison
University
Hopkins

Cross Street²
Hutchison
Fredericksburg
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
N. LBJ
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison

After Hours by Block

Sum of Occupancy
44%
59%
85%
73%
92%
70%
89%
96%

Time

(Multiple Items)

Week Day

(Multiple Items)

Proposed Zone
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core

Type of Regulation
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Location
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
N. Guadalupe
N. Guadalupe
N. LBJ

Cross Street¹
Hopkins
Guadalupe
LBJ
Fredericksburg
Guadalupe
Hutchison
University
Hopkins

Cross Street²
Hutchison
Fredericksburg
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
N. LBJ
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison

Sum of Occupancy Spaces
56%
80%
97%
57%
75%
73%
74%
96%

7
18
16
15
15
14
16
29

Above 85% any time?
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Core

2 Hour

N. LBJ

Hutchison

University

94%

Core

2 Hour

N. LBJ

Hutchison

University

93%

25

Yes

Core
Core
Core
Core
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio
San Antonio
Burleson
CM Allen
Comanche
Concho
Edward Gary
Edward Gary

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Mary St
University
Lindsey
N. LBJ
Hutchison
Hutchison

San Antonio
Hopkins
Fredericksburg
LBJ
Moore
Hopkins
Pat Garrison
Guadalupe
Hopkins
University

70%
82%
81%
52%
79%
76%
98%
97%
84%
84%

Core
Core
Core
Core
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio
San Antonio
Burleson
CM Allen
Comanche
Concho
Edward Gary
Edward Gary

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Mary St
University
Lindsey
N. LBJ
Hutchison
Hutchison

San Antonio
Hopkins
Fredericksburg
LBJ
Moore
Hopkins
Pat Garrison
Guadalupe
Hopkins
University

85%
86%
92%
71%
30%
29%
96%
92%
84%
64%

26
42
29
53
12
27
16
17
23
23

No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No

North

2 Hour

Fredericksburg

Pat Garrison

Lindsey

96%

North

2 Hour

Fredericksburg

Pat Garrison

Lindsey

70%

9

Yes

North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Lindsey
Mary St
Moon St
N. Guadalupe

Edward Gary
North
CM Allen
Comanche
Fredericksburg
N. LBJ
Moore
Comanche
Hutchison
University
Concho

LBJ
Comanche
Edward Gary
North St
Comanche
Edward Gary
North
Fredericksburg
Burleson
Hutchison
University

110%
18%
71%
70%
78%
90%
65%
98%
91%
79%
94%

North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Lindsey
Mary St
Moon St
N. Guadalupe

Edward Gary
North
CM Allen
Comanche
Fredericksburg
N. LBJ
Moore
Comanche
Hutchison
University
Concho

LBJ
Comanche
Edward Gary
North St
Comanche
Edward Gary
North
Fredericksburg
Burleson
Hutchison
University

107%
58%
77%
104%
58%
83%
62%
69%
19%
37%
90%

4
13
19
9
10
25
13
11
13
24
8

Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

North

2 Hour

N. Guadalupe

Concho

Woods

95%

North

2 Hour

N. Guadalupe

Concho

Woods

63%

7

Yes

North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

N. LBJ
N. LBJ
North St
North St
North St
Pat Garrison
North St
S. Guadalupe
S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio

Concho
University
Burleson
Hopkins
Hutchison
Comanche
Harvey
MLK
MLK
San Antonio
Edward Gary

Woods
Concho
Lindsey
Hutchison
Burleson
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Railroad Tracks
San Antonio
MLK
LBJ

96%
135%
94%
75%
83%
101%
31%
52%
31%
63%
44%

North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

N. LBJ
N. LBJ
North St
North St
North St
Pat Garrison
North St
S. Guadalupe
S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio

Concho
University
Burleson
Hopkins
Hutchison
Comanche
Harvey
MLK
MLK
San Antonio
Edward Gary

Woods
Concho
Lindsey
Hutchison
Burleson
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Railroad Tracks
San Antonio
MLK
LBJ

76%
113%
101%
83%
51%
100%
32%
84%
57%
93%
112%

16
7
9
7
11
10
5
20
13
51
12

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes

South

2 Hour

San Antonio

Fredericksburg Comanche

71%

South

2 Hour

San Antonio

Fredericksburg Comanche

95%

38

Yes

South
South
South
South
South
South
Grand Total

4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour

Edward Gary
Edward Gary
MLK
San Antonio
San Antonio
San Antonio

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
CM Allen
Comanche
Harvey

78%
18%
16%
38%
77%
4%
72%

South
South
South
South
South
South
Grand Total

4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour

Edward Gary
Edward Gary
MLK
San Antonio
San Antonio
San Antonio

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
CM Allen
Comanche
Harvey

76%
38%
75%
57%
65%
4%
77%

11
32
9
9
7
13
17

No
No
No
No
No
No

San Antonio
LBJ
Fredericksburg
Edward Gary
North St
North St

San Antonio
LBJ
Fredericksburg
Edward Gary
North St
North St

Blocks Over 85%

24

% of Blocks

48%

% of Spaces

50%

Block Band Analysis M - F; 8 AM - 5 PM
Threshold
90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

OVERALL
# Blocks
16
2
11
12
5
4
50

Block Band Analysis After Hours

% of Blocks
32%
4%
22%
24%
10%
8%
100%

Threshold
90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

CORE
# Blocks
3
2
2
5
1
0
13

NORTH

% of Blocks
23%
15%
15%
38%
8%
0%
100%

Threshold
90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

SOUTH

OVERALL
# Blocks
14
2
11
16
5
2
50

% of Blocks
28%
4%
22%
32%
10%
4%
100%

Threshold
90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

CORE
# Blocks
4
1
3
5
0
0
13

NORTH

% of Blocks
31%
8%
23%
38%
0%
0%
100%

SOUTH

Threshold
90%

# Blocks
13

% of Blocks
52%

Threshold
90%

# Blocks
0

% of Blocks
0%

Threshold
90%

# Blocks
7

% of Blocks
28%

Threshold
90%

# Blocks
3

% of Blocks
25%

85%
75%
50%

0
7
4

0%
28%
16%

85%
75%
50%

0
2
3

0%
17%
25%

85%
75%
50%

1
5
8

4%
20%
32%

85%
75%
50%

0
3
3

0%
25%
25%

25%
0%
Total

0
1
25

0%
4%
100%

25%
0%
Total

4
3
12

33%
25%
100%

25%
0%
Total

3
1
25

12%
4%
100%

25%
0%
Total

2
1
12

17%
8%
100%

Regulation Type Analysis M-F; 8 AM - 5 PM
Time
Week Day

(Multiple Items)
(Multiple Items)

Type of Regulation
2 Hour

Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
South

4 Hour
Grand Total

Sum of Occupancy
76%
84%
58%
32%
72%

Regulation Type Analysis After Hours
Time
Week Day

(Multiple Items)
(Multiple Items)

Type of Regulation
2 Hour

Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
South

4 Hour
Grand Total

Sum of Occupancy
82%
68%
88%
66%
77%

Early Morning by Block
Time

6:00 AM

Week Day

(All)

Proposed Zone
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core

Type of Regulation
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Location
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
N. Guadalupe
N. Guadalupe
N. LBJ

Cross Street¹
Hopkins
Guadalupe
LBJ
Fredericksburg
Guadalupe
Hutchison
University
Hopkins

Cross Street²
Hutchison
Fredericksburg
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
N. LBJ
Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison

Sum of Occupancy
0%
9%
8%
4%
9%
17%
6%
5%

Core

2 Hour

N. LBJ

Hutchison

University

7%

Core
Core
Core
Core
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio
San Antonio
Burleson
CM Allen
Comanche
Concho
Edward Gary
Edward Gary

Hopkins
San Antonio
Guadalupe
Guadalupe
Mary St
University
Lindsey
N. LBJ
Hutchison
Hutchison

San Antonio
Hopkins
Fredericksburg
LBJ
Moore
Hopkins
Pat Garrison
Guadalupe
Hopkins
University

3%
9%
50%
14%
11%
0%
59%
48%
39%
6%

North

2 Hour

Fredericksburg

Pat Garrison

Lindsey

81%

North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour

Hopkins
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Hutchison
Lindsey
Mary St
Moon St
N. Guadalupe
N. Guadalupe
N. LBJ

Edward Gary
CM Allen
Comanche
Fredericksburg
N. LBJ
Comanche
Hutchison
University
Concho
Concho
Concho

LBJ
Edward Gary
North St
Comanche
Edward Gary
Fredericksburg
Burleson
Hutchison
University
Woods
Woods

5%
10%
94%
1%
6%
62%
4%
1%
45%
31%
40%

North

2 Hour

N. LBJ

University

Concho

91%

North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South

2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
2 Hour
4 Hour
4 Hour

North St
North St
North St
North St
S. Guadalupe
S. Guadalupe
S. LBJ
San Antonio
San Antonio
Edward Gary
MLK

Burleson
Hopkins
Hutchison
Harvey
MLK
MLK
San Antonio
Edward Gary
Fredericksburg
Hopkins
Guadalupe

Lindsey
Hutchison
Burleson
Hopkins
Railroad Tracks
San Antonio
MLK
LBJ
Comanche
San Antonio
Fredericksburg

62%
18%
15%
5%
72%
9%
24%
17%
48%
16%
55%

South

4 Hour

San Antonio

CM Allen

Edward Gary

5%

South
Grand Total

4 Hour

San Antonio

Comanche

North St

21%
23%

Block Band Analysis Early Morning
Threshold
90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

OVERALL
# Blocks
2
0
1
5
7
30
45

% of Blocks
4%
0%
2%
11%
16%
67%
100%

Threshold
90%
85%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Total

NORTH

CORE
# Blocks
0
0
0
0
1
12
13

% of Blocks
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
92%
100%

SOUTH

Threshold
90%

# Blocks
2

% of Blocks
9%

Threshold
90%

# Blocks
0

% of Blocks
0%

85%
75%
50%

0
1
3

0%
5%
14%

85%
75%
50%

0
0
2

0%
0%
20%

25%
0%
Total

5
11
22

23%
50%
100%

25%
0%
Total

1
7
10

10%
70%
100%

Regulation Type Analysis Early Morning
Time
Week Day

6:00 AM
(All)

Type of Regulation
2 Hour

Proposed Zone
Core
North
South
South

4 Hour
Grand Total

Sum of Occupancy
12%
27%
35%
24%
23%

APPENDIX D
Select Survey Result Exports

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Downtown Parking Input Survey Summary
Conducted May 7 – June 8, 2018

Survey Notes
•

Beginning May 7, 2018, the Downtown Association of San Marcos (DTA) conducted a survey to receive
feedback on a number of Downtown Parking Management issues. This document contains a summary of the
responses received over the period of one month (until June 8, 2018)

•

The survey was made available via the DTA website at www.downtownsanmarcos.org

•

Participation was solicited via an email campaign to the DTA’s Member and Interest lists. Subsequently, a
postcard was distributed to all businesses within the Main Street boundary with the assistance of Main Street.
The focus for soliciting responses was on downtown business owners, property owners, and their employees (vs.
the community at large)

•

46 total responses were received. Of those responses, 29 were from DTA Members and 17 were from Other
Respondents generally consisting of non-member businesses and employees of downtown businesses

•

On a selective basis where there was a material divergence from the feedback received from DTA members
vs. Other Respondents, the results are presented with those two data sets reported independently. Otherwise,
results are presented as a single, combined data set

•

Any question reporting less than 46 total responses indicates some respondents chose not to answer, as no
questions were required to be answered. Where questions allowed a respondent to select multiple items, the
results can total more than 46

•

Open response fields are provided in their entirety without any modification, including spelling or grammar,
and are listed alphabetically by the first letter in the response. All open responses received through June 8,
2018 have been included and none have been omitted

•

To protect the integrity of the survey from duplicate submittals, the survey was not anonymous and a unique
name and email address was required for each submittal. However, out of respect for the privacy of
respondents, identifying information has been sanitized from this report

2

Top Priority
What should be the TOP priority for downtown Parking Management?

Increase opportunities for employees to park off-street, freeing onstreet spaces for customers
Discourage University goers (students, visitors, etc.) from using
downtown on-street parking
Generate revenue to spend on enhancing downtown

Other
0
DTA Member

2

4

6

8

10

12

Other Respondent

“Other” Responses:
Increase opportunities for employees and business owners to have parking spaces or provide metered parking. I don't mind paying a couple of dollars a
day for parking but $20/day per employee is starting to get expenses. The constant moving of cars is disrupting our office flow.
Let employees park downtown without getting tickets
Positive priorities only. Make it where downtown shoppers and guests can have ample opportunities to park at reasonable rates throughout the entire
day.
We should focus on creating more on-street parking and step up enforcement M-F. Bringing Guadalupe down to 2 lanes and restriping to pull-in parking
on both sides from the University to the RR tracks would add another 120+ spaces. That action alone would significantly increase available parking and
would simultaneously calm the traffic that regularly travels 10+ MPH over the posted speed limit along that corridor.

3

14

Enforcement
Do you think the 2-Hour time limit works for
downtown San Marcos?

Have you perceived a difference in enforcement
since License Plate Recognition started in March?

65%
Yes, 12%

Yes
30%

No
35%

No, 88%

23%

No – it’s too short and too long; we need time options
No – it’s too long to prevent students from using downtown for a
single class

Not Sure
35%

No – it’s too short for customers that need to be at a business longer

•
•

4

21 respondents reported either themselves, a customer, or a friend receiving a ticket since March
27 respondents reported seeing the LPR vehicle patrolling or staff issuing a ticket since March

How to read this chart:
Starting from the center, each response pushes out
its data series by one unit. Each concentric circle
represents 5 responses. Each time period is
arranged in a clock face and its total number of
responses creates a plotted point. The time with
the greatest value has its value shown and creates
a peak that may be read as a clock hand.
AM / PM segmented, as needed.

Enforcement (cont.)
When do you think enforcement should start and stop on Weekdays?

11:00

Start

End

12:00
25

12:00
15

20

1:00

15

10:00

11:00
2:00

10

10

10:00

2:00

5

5
9:00

1:00

3:00

0

9:00

3:00

0

22
8:00

4:00

8:00

4:00
14

7:00

5:00
6:00
AM

•
•

5

7:00

5:00
6:00
PM

AM

Five respondents favored enforcing parking on Saturdays and only three respondents favored
enforcing parking on Sundays
Ten respondents favored prohibiting overnight parking and an additional seven favored
enforcement through the night to 4AM or later

Paid On-street Parking Management Tools
Average
Response

This tool makes me more likely to support paid on-street parking…

Ability to Pay by App
or Pay by Phone (in
addition to meter)

20
10

19

9
1

1

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE

0

A Benefit District
where excess revenue
from downtown
parking meters is
spent on downtown

20

A Validation Program
to allow businesses to
share parking costs
with customers (if
elected)

20

Revenue from meters
funds expanded
enforcement staff
and resources

20

6

15

10

NEUTRAL

AGREE

STRONGLY AGREE
22

12
4

2

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE

5

0

10

5

3

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE

NEUTRAL

AGREE

15

13

STRONGLY AGREE

9

0

10

NEUTRAL

AGREE

STRONGLY AGREE

16
5

6

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE

10

8

0
NEUTRAL

AGREE

STRONGLY AGREE

Paid On-Street Parking Management Tools (cont.)
Average
Response

This tool makes me more likely to support paid on-street parking…
1 to 2 spaces per
block face that allow
for free 20-minute
customer parking

Hourly parking rates
are higher on high
demand blocks

Hourly parking rates
vary by time of day
based on demand

7

20

11

10

11

15
5

3

0

20

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE

NEUTRAL

AGREE

STRONGLY AGREE

11

11

7

8

8

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE

NEUTRAL

AGREE

STRONGLY AGREE

9

11

11

9

STRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGREE

10
0

20
10

5

0
NEUTRAL

AGREE

STRONGLY AGREE

Paid On-street Parking
Assuming an on-street space was within 1.5
blocks of your destination, what do you think is a
fair price per HOUR?

If paid on-street parking was introduced, how
would you favor it rolling out?

20

$1.48 / HR Average
$1.00 / HR Mode

Across all of downtown at
once

15

10
8
In a phased approach where
high-demand areas receive
meters first
3
2

2

2

2

1
0
DTA Member

8

5

10

Other Respondent

15

20

0
$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

Off-street Parking
What do you think is the MAIN reason there are
not more paid off-street parking lots in downtown
San Marcos?

“Other” Responses:
1. Parking lots/garages are expensive. 2. All the other space is already
privately owned. 3. Current land values make a parking lot a losing proposition
for anyone other than an entity who is just holding space.
city parking lot size requirements make large scale paid parking an
unprofitable venture, could work with more flexibility.
employees cannot afford to park there because they are under paid, and
they are the ideal persons to use such spaces, as they are likely to be there for
long periods of time
Highest and best use prohibitions,i.e. taxes, income per sq ft, etc
How are people supposed to know about these secret parking spaces. If a
patron was driving around seeking parking, and did view one of these hidden
parking spaces,how are they supposed to know its not a tow away?
I believe it is a combination of free on-street parking and maintenance and
liability concerns. Also, most have never been approached about using their
potential lot for parking.
I don't know that people know where these spaces would be.
I think it is a combination of these things, not just one of the above. E.g. - I've
heard many residents of SM say they wont go downtown bc there's no
parking. TXstate students aren't paying now when they use downtown parking,
so they're not going to pay, residential neighborhoods near the University are
infested with students parking making it difficult to negotiate the street.
Burleson St. South of Moore St is a good example of this.
I think it is a mixture of all of the above

Free On-Street Parking

Lack of Available Spaces

Maintenance and liability
concerns

Other

Lack of available spaces and maintenance and liability concerns

0
DTA Member

9

2

4

6

8

Other Respondent

10

12

14

We have no city owned garages or lots downtown designated for parking. This
is a mainstay in most towns across America. This allows the town to retain
downtown real estate that will grow in value and to generate income in the
meantime.

Off-street Parking (cont.)
Assuming an off-street space was within 3 blocks
of your destination, what do you think is a fair
price for MONTHLY parking?

10
9

Can you think of off-street parking spaces or lots
that are great candidates for either during the
day or in the evenings?
1. OMG. That freaking church next to City Hall. There's like 40,000 spaces and
they are empty every. single. day. 2. The City Rec lot should be promoted as
"a 5 minute walk to downtown" all the time. Other than in the summer, there's
never anyone parked there. 3. Also, the former library parking lot has about
30 prime spaces that sit empty 90% of the time.

$45.94 / Mo. Average
$50.00 / Mo. Mode

First United Methodist Church parking lot
Former Frost Bank Drive-Thru
I think there should be a free parking garage for employees that work
downtown with a trolley that will drop off to each business. And the university
needs to have a better bus route, more buses, or a cap on the admission.
Maybe coordinate with property owners of businesses that are closed or
empty if parking can be made available. Maybe the old location of the
Ozona bank between hopkings and San antonio st for example.
No I cannot that is not charged to an employee for working
Not known

4

THE CASEY PROPERTY BETWEEN LBJ AND GUADALUPE

3

The Frost Bank parking lot behind Torchys and the urgent care center, the
parking lot where The Hitch used to be

2 22
11

11 11

11

1

1

1

0
$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

There is a lot next to Aqua Brew that I know has been restricted in the past
that would provide business owners and establishments with more parking
opportunities south of the square.
There is a parking lot behind the old tax building on the corner of LBJ and San
Antonio street. That would be a good candidate for off-street parking to be
sold/rented out annually or even semi annually.
This is a terrible question because square employees should not have to pay
to park.

10

ParqEx
Are you aware of the apps like ParqEx.com that
create a marketplace for property owners and
parking users to rent off-street parking spaces by
the hour, day, week, or month?

Would you be interested in using ParqEx.com to
rent spaces?

Yes – I’m a property owner and
would like to list, please
contact me to help
Yes – I know that there are
ParqEx spaces in San Marcos
Yes – I’d like to rent. I’ll check
out ParqEx.com

No – But, this is a great idea
No
No – And, I don't think this is
helpful

0
DTA Member

11

5

10

Other Respondent

15

0
DTA Member

5

10

Other Respondent

15

20

Other Modes
Please indicate which of the additional initiatives you support as a way to decrease demand for
parking thereby increasing parking availability:
30

25

Transit
Linking to
Downtown

More
Residential
Downtown

Safer
Pedestrian
Environment

20

15

Safer
Bicycle
Environment

Transit
Circulator
Downtown

10

5

0
Increased investment in Increased residential uses Increased prioritization of Increased prioritization of Increased investment in
transit frequently linking
downtown for a walking
a safe pedestrian
a safe bicycling
transit to circulate people
other areas of town to the
customer base
environment
environment
within the downtown
downtown
DTA Member

12

Other Respondent

Open Comments
We forget something? Just need to vent? Go wild.
1. Your new electronic system is FLAWED. I was told that the "angle of the camera" can cause for an error and the guy writing the ticket refused to review the
photos. When I called to fight the ticket, I was told that the man writing the ticket could have reviewed the photos IMMEDIATELY.
2. I work on the square and I meet with clients several times a day. Sometimes, my office has clients here ALL DAY and we're forced to excuse ourselves from
the meetings to move our cars. Can we pay an annual fee to the downtown association with proof of employment to get a parking pass if we're a full time
employee on the square?
3. Transit would be pointless for EMPLOYEES on the square. Most of us are full-time employees with kids who attend school or after-school activities. Unless your
transit will bring my kid to daycare and then back to san marcos for work, transit won't really assist. It is great for students, though.
4. The student parking has car garages! Why not reserve space for a car garage? Allow employees to park at the garage instead of risking tickets on the
square.

Allow downtown workers to pay $15 a month max, for parking
Businesses around town need to start internal programs that incentivize their employees to bike, walk, carpool or take the bus to work (small monthly bonuses,
gift cards, etc. if they don't require a employer-paid parking space). This along with metering on street spaces and off-street parking apps like ParqEx will help
tremendously in opening up spaces for paying customers. Downtown has too many surface lots and we don't need more space devoted to parking versus
people.
First, Thanks for all the efforts made toward helping the problem! Sometimes as we all know its hard to step outside the business to handle other matters. I
appreciate the help the DTA offers. I would like to jot down a few notes about the LPR that seem to stick out for me. The zones and parking areas are a bit
confusing. Some areas that have signs, are not patrolled at all via camera. Places that are patrolled are actually set up on different "zones" not the actual spots
like we were led to believe. I have gotten many complaints from neighboring Businesses employee's moving and still getting tickets, regularly. Is there a way
this can be rectified? It is a bummer to have your employees run outside, move their car in the middle of a shift to still end up getting a ticket regardless. Also
how do we know which signed areas are real or not? We have signs in front of my new store but I know for a fact the Parking Enforcement has never written a
ticket down here. I routinely have people park in front of my store for 8+ hours.

For the freaking life of me, I do not get people that will spend all day Sunday hiking Purgatory Creek but say they don't go to Paper Bear because it is so hard to
find a parking spot. Or will go to Austin and spend a fortune on a parking garage but complain in San Marcos that meters would be horrible. Or the lot by
Louies' is high. Hell no it isn't but they must be.
I despise paid parking on public tax payer property. Private parking is separate and fee based. I am fine with that. I don't venture into Austin ,Tx but perhaps
once a year because of their paid parking. I watched Austin go from FREE to $20 in but a few years. I fear its a slippery slope for San Marcos to implement even
minimal paid parking,and the revenue dependency always leads to an increase in fees,in tandem with the fines, which drives away customers.

13

Open Comments (cont.)
We forget something? Just need to vent? Go wild.
I don't know what a reasonable rate would be for off street parking but if I had to pay for each of my employees (3) the cost could get to be more of a burden
than paying the occasional ticket. Although I have already dished out over $200 in the last month in parking fines so anything less than that would be great.
The ParqEx feature is a nice thought but I regularly work late hours and some of the parking options through ParqEx are not convenient and safe for an
individual working downtown in the evening. Should this become the norm downtown, I would like to see safety measures in place for individuals who may be
working late to assist in providing secure areas for parking. Yes, I do realize that if I move my car after the time limit I would be able to still have my creature
comfort of safety near my office. However, if I am paying for a parking space to help the downtown flow, I would like to know that my fees are being used to
also ensure my safety. I also saw that there is a potential for the hours to change so I would like my response kept in mind as potential changes to the time
frame and parking limitations are considered.
I feel like meter parking will give a fair shot to every business trying to attract customers the downtown. My salon services are almost always a 3+ hour service. I
provide that service 3 times a day which means I have 15 potential patrons not touring the downtown because they have probably already recieved a parking
ticket. I have been informing them of the "Hospitality parking" and comping half of their rate ($8) per client. That's close to $200 a month of revenue I'm losing to
keep my clients coming downtown. I feel meters will keep it fair for those whose business who have patrons for only 15 minutes along with those who have 3+
hour services on clients who'd also like to shop or eat after getting their hair done.
I have a staff of 6- 8 people and I think it is ridiculous that there is not a way for them to park anywhere for an unlimited amount of time. It is so aggravating
when they have to go move their cars every two hours when our two employee spots are filled.
I have locals come in here and say "I have never heard of this place because I don't make my way to downtown a lot." when I ask why it is always because the
parking is terrible. If locals are saying this imagine how much business we are losing from visitors.
I think the answer is a combination of meters and LPR.
I work at a new shop downtown where we don’t have our own parking lot. So all my coworkers and I have to move our vehicles every 2 hours. We’ve all
received tickets within the past two months, and it’s extremely frustrating. I understand the parking time limit to keep the hundreds of students from filling up
downtown, but it makes it difficult for workers on/right off the square to avoid tickets. I don’t know if this is a possibility, but a possible solution could potentially
be parking passes for employees? Something to be displayed on the windshield, or picked up by the LPR enforcement? Glad y’all are doing this survey, thank
you for giving us a chance to speak up!
I'm torn about many of the possible Paid Parking Management Tools. I think I like some of those ideas, but worry that too many options or price differences or
peak pricing schemes will just create confusion and more resistance to the whole process. At least at first. I can see a time when some of those things might
make sense to implement, but unless someone has some great arguments otherwise, I’m putting in my vote for all spots being exactly the same at first. Also, I've
not seen an enforcement vehicle in months. That's not an option on the survey question.

14

Open Comments (cont.)
We forget something? Just need to vent? Go wild.
If free two hour parking is eliminated, my business could be adversely affected. At least my daytime tenants can move their cars and come and go at optimal
times. Our clients will be adversely affected because many of them are low income and a $1.00 is a big deal to them. They can find other providers where
pariking is free. I would have to find a way to use a voucher method with them to keep their business, as would my tenants. My tenants utilize a lot of
downtown businesses because of their proximity, especially middle of the day and they do not use up spaces after normal business hours, which would affect
other night time venues.
Let the LPR work for 12-18 months to see if it works through students being here and not here then determine what would be the next approach, continue or
discontinue with LPR
Let's get some garages up in this b
Let's get this fixed! This has been a conversation piece for too long, action needs to occur!
ParqEx is a great site for what we have. But it is ridiculous that we are paying $500 a month to keep our employees parked, and that is only 12 a day. Downtown
should PRIORITIZE its workers because without them none of the businesses would exist. Set up free parking and shuttle for employees. We are nice and pay for
our employees spots but many companies will charge them and $40 a month is ridiculous to make an employee pay. Please help us fix these problems
Store owners should have a way to contact parking enforcement. We could give a heads up when students park and walk to campus.
Subsidized parking for employees!
The city of San Marcos should use the 10% hike in property tax to build a parking garage that allows employees of the square to park for free and then can
charge patrons an hourly rate. The proceeds then can be used to fund improvements, as well as keep maintenance on the parking garage.
The opinions and views of the business and property owners should be made priority over any outside company brought and payed for their OPINION of our
city. We are all smart and creative people and know our city and unique problems best. That goes for local bureaucrats as well. Outside views should be
welcomed and listened to of course. Together, we can make our downtown even better than it already is.
Towing that is becoming more and more enforced is encouraging drunk driving. More safe options for parking overnight without the threat of being towed
need to happen.
We need a train or trolley that would prevent any cars from driving thru downtown and make it a true marketplace that allows for a more comfortable walking
or bike riding experiene. We are San Marcos, we will never be Austin, wr will never be San Antonio, and we dont want to be anything but San Marcos strong.
Lets turn our focus on being something different and innovative! We have a precious natural resource flowing thru the heart of our town, preserving that should
be our #1 priority. There are no if ands or buts, allowing some deep pockets tl control what is being built on aquafer zones is disgusting. The university is not what
makes this town. Lets give our future generations a better way of life, and something they will take pride in.
WHERE THE HECK ARE EMPLOYEES SUPPOSED TO PARK?!? We don’t own a space at the boutique I work at, so I am constantly paranoid about getting a ticket
this bringing me down to be paid below the minimum wage due to having it constantly pay for tickets. I think we need spots that are specifically for employees
who work on the square. Unfortunately I live to far from the square to walk or ride a bike.

15

2025 PARKING SPECIFIC SURVEY
SUMMARY SLIDES
RAW DATA ON FILE WITH CITY STAFF INCLUDING OPEN COMMENTS

Downtown Parking Community Survey
Showing Results from February 2025 to April 2025
D
13.2%

What describes your connection to Downtown?

E
A
1.1% 10.2%

(Select all that apply)

A. I am a non-resident that visits downtown (66)

C
6.7%

B. I am a San Marcos resident that visits downtown (445)
C. I live downtown (43)
D. I work downtown (85)
E. Other (7)

B
68.9%

467

Are you a Texas State University student?
A. No, I am not a current Texas State student (81.4%)

99

B. Yes, I am a current Texas State student (17.2%)
A

B

How often do you park an automobile downtown?

232

A. Daily (4-7 days/week) (20.9%)
B. Monthly (1-3 times/month) (27.2%)

156
120

C. Occasionally (5-10 times/year) (7%)
40

D. Rarely (3.8%)

22

E. Weekly (1-3 days/week) (40.4%)
A

B

C

D

E

What is the primary reason you park an automobile

A
G
3.9% 2.5%

on the street downtown?
A. For class or other functions at TXST (14)

E
10.4%

B. For dining, entertainment, or social events (321)
C. For professional services or business purposes (24)
D. For shopping or personal services (107)
E. For work (full-time, part-time, or internship) (59)

D
18.8%

B
56.3%

F. I live downtown and use on-street parking (15)
G. Other (22)
H. To visit the San Marcos River (8)

C
4.2%

How would you describe the availability of on-street parking in downtown?
301

A. Always available (17.1%)
B. Never available (6.1%)
C. Rarely available (23.5%)
D. Sometimes available (52.4%)

135

98
35

A

B

C

D

What time(s) of day do you park an automobile downtown?
(Select all that apply)

A. 10:00 PM - 3:00 AM (20.0%)

366

434

B. 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM (63.8%)
C. 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (75.6%)
D. Overnight (3:00 AM - 8:00 AM) (4.5%)

115
26

A

B

C

D

What day(s) of the week do you park an automobile
G
13.2%

downtown? (Select all that apply)

A
11.6%

A. Monday (284)

B
12.3%

B. Tuesday (302)
C. Wednesday (336)
D. Thursday (335)

F
18%

E. Friday (430)
C
13.7%

F. Saturday (440)
G. Sunday (324)
E
17.5%

D
13.7%

If paid parking generated funds for downtown projects, which of the
following types of improvements should the city prioritize? (Select all that apply)
K
J
9.5% 1.8%

A. Additional public off-street parking (321)
B. Bicycle infrastructure (141)
C. Common trash/recycling for businesses (98)
D. Downtown maintenance and security crews (147)

A
17.4%

I
12.6%

B
7.6%

E. Drainage improvements (146)
F. Employee parking subsidies and programs (121)

C
5.3%

G. Lighting and security infrastructure 173)
H. Pedestrian Infrastructure (260)
I. Streetscaping (233)

H
14.1%

D
7.9%

J. Transit Infrastructure (176)
K. Other (34)

G
9.4%

F
6.5%

E
7.9%

If paid parking revenue were only used for downtown

304

improvements, including parking improvements, would
you be more likely to support a paid parking program?

159
102

A. Indifferent (102 responses, 17.8%)
B. No (304 responses, 53.0%)
C. Yes (159 responses, 27.7%)

B

A

C

What is the number one issue you have as it relates to automotive parking?
A. Lack of parking availability (55.1%)

316

B. Motorists Violating Parking Laws (8.2%)
C. Other (15.9%)

47

91

103

C

D

D. Restricted time limit (17.9%)
A

B

Survey Responses from Non-San Marcos Residents

sanmarcostx.gov

1

sanmarcostx.gov

2

sanmarcostx.gov

3

sanmarcostx.gov

4

San Marcos, TX
The National Community Survey
Report of Results
2025

SELECTED EXTRACT OF PARKING
RELATED QUESTIONS

Report by:

Visit us online!
www.polco.us

National Resear h Center at ol o
is a harter mem er of the
R
Transparen y nitiative provi in
lear is losure of our soun an
ethi al survey resear h pra ti es

Other Notable Results (Custom Questions)
● When asked how often they leave San Marcos to visit certain businesses, residents most frequently reported

going elsewhere for grocery shopping (e.g., H-E-B Plus!, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods). Additionally, about 8 in 10
residents indicated that they felt the City should actively pursue attracting more grocery stores (81% yes).
● Residents also prioritized attracting additional family entertainment options (83% yes), casual dine-in restaurants
(72%), upscale/fine dining (61%), and personal services such as salons, spas, and fitness centers (60%).
● Overall, residents showed no clear consensus on whether paid parking would be an effective tool for managing
parking challenges.
● Participants most often relied on the City’s website, social media, and word-of-mouth to get information about San
Marcos government, activities, events, and services.
● Most respondents (85%) felt it was essential or very important for the City to address the impacts of river
recreation on natural resources.

Areas of Greatest Change
Of the evaluative questions included on both the 2022 and 2025survey iterations, 82 were statistically similar to
previous results. Upward trends were seen in 34 items, while 6 ratings decreased since 2022. The most significant
of those trends are listed below.
Increases
● Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) (+32%)
● Ease of travel by car in San Marcos (+20%)
● Sewer services (+19%)
Decreases
● Bus or transit services (-17%)
● Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities (-14%)
● Local government treating residents with respect (-11%)

8

Overall quality of the transportation system in
San Marcos, 2025
6%

Excellent

Mobility
The ability of residents to move about their
community with ease plays an important role in
the overall quality of life for everyone who lives,
works, and spends time there.

31%

Good

39%

Fair

25%

Poor

Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to San Marcos as a whole.
(% excellent or good)
vs. national
Overall quality of the transportation
system

2021
35%

2023

2025
37%

-1

benchmark¹⁴
0

vs. custom
benchmark¹⁵
1

2

Similar

Similar

-1

0

1

2

-1

0

1

2

Lower

Lower

Lower

Lower

Please also rate each of the following in the San Marcos community.
(% excellent or good)
2021

2023

2025
35%

Traffic flow on major streets

18%

↗
34%

↗

Ease of public parking

25%

Ease of travel by car

37%

↗

Similar

Similar

Ease of travel by public transportation

29%

25%

Similar

Similar

Ease of travel by bicycle

34%

30%

Lower

Lower

42%

39%

Lower

Lower

0

1

57%

Ease of walking

-1

2

15

Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.

No
Personal services Yes
(e.g., salons, spas,
fitness centers,
etc.)
No
Family
entertainment

The City is
considering
introducing paid
parking in the
downtown area.
Please indicate
how much you
agree or disagree
with the following
statements

60%
40%

Yes

83%

No

17%

Paid parking would Strongly support
help address
parking availability
Somewhat support
downtown

10%

Somewhat oppose

23%

Strongly oppose

42%

Paid parking would Strongly support
help make parking
spaces available
Somewhat support
more often, so
more people can
access businesses
Somewhat oppose
downtown
Strongly oppose
Paid parking would Strongly support
discourage
long-term use of
Somewhat support
high-demand
spaces near
businesses
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose

25%

15%
21%
27%
37%
24%
27%
20%
30%

Paid parking would Strongly support
provide a
necessary source
of revenue for the Somewhat support
City

15%

Somewhat oppose

24%

Strongly oppose

34%

27%

Paid parking would Strongly support
negatively impact
downtown
Somewhat support
businesses

35%

Somewhat oppose

19%

34%

33

Paid parking would Strongly support
negatively impact
downtown

35%
34%

Somewhat oppose

19%

Strongly oppose

12%

Overall, paid
Strongly support
parking would be
an effective tool for
Somewhat support
managing
downtown parking
concerns
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
How much of a
City website (www. Major source
source, if at all, are sanmarcostx.gov)
each of the
Minor source
following for you
for getting
information about
Not a source
the City of San
Marcos
government and its Regional media
Major source
activities, events, outlets (Austin or
and services?
San Antonio tv,
radio, newspapers, Minor source

10%
26%
30%
34%
46%
37%
16%
34%
41%

etc.)
Not a source

25%

Major source

9%

Minor source

23%

Not a source

69%

Major source

15%

Minor source

40%

Not a source

46%

Talking with San
Major source
Marcos officials
and/or San Marcos
Minor source
employees

28%

Not a source

45%

Government
access channel
(Spectrum 10 or
Grande 16)

San Marcos
Council meetings
and other public
meetings

27%

34

City of San Marcos Major source

APPENDIX E
Downtown Parking Benefit District Model Exports

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Pessimistic
Parking Operations Statement of Activties
Revenue
Paid On-Street Parking
Off-Street Lot - MLK
Off-Street Lot - Hutchison
City Park Lot
Parking Enforcement Fines
Uncollectable Fines
Special Event Fees
Residential Parking Permits
Other Operating Income
Revenue Subtotal

EXISTING BASELINE
T12 (Apr '25 - Mar '26)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Expense
Depreciation Expense
$
Employee Parking Program
$
Fuel (Enforcement)
$
Maintenance and Repairs
$
Merchant Services (CC Fees)
Personnel
$
Postage
$
Residential PP Fees Paid
$
Signage
$
Software
$
Supplies
$
Telephone
$
Training
$
Uniforms
$
Expense Subtotal
$

EXISTING
Existing T12

PROJECTION AFTER PBD
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
$
$
$ 1,004,693
4,642 $
$
$
15,000
19,205 $
$
$
$
$
265,263 $
600,772 $
695,509
$
(210,270) $
(173,877)
$
6,000
245 $
250
414,594 $
527,882 $
265,263 $ 1,019,693

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
Notes
1,004,693 See Time Block model next sheet
15,000 Estimate
Moved to paid hourly in North Zone after alley improvement project complete
265,263 Estimated based on 9.5 months of data through March 2026
695,509 Historic + Estimated based on 9.5 months of data through March 2026
(173,877) Assumed improved 75% collection rate
6,000 Placeholder TXST $1000 x 6 games
250 Need to validate current number
e.g. Parking Fee in Lieu
1,812,838

PROJECTION
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
18,000 $
18,000 $
17,400 $
57,998
8,758 $
$
30,000
8,691 $
13,037
1,279 $
18,000
Unk $
18,476 $
9,284 $
35,689
299,825 $
757,900
179 $
500
$
$
500 $
1,000
$
12,000 $
5,000 $
10,000
84,079 $
180,000
5,002 $
10,000
1,732 $
3,000
$
10,000
1,723 $
3,000
429,268 $ 1,043,912 $
32,184 $
134,688

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
93,398
30,000
13,037
18,000
63,449
757,900
500
1,500
27,000
180,000
10,000
3,000
10,000
3,000
1,210,784

$

602,054

Net

$

(14,674) $

(516,031) $

233,079

Base Ops Charge

$

-

516,031

$

(107,573) $

(408,457) $

-

Net to Benefit District

$

(14,674) $

-

$

125,506

476,548

602,054

$

$

$

885,005

6/11/26

$

Notes
6% WACC, 5 YR AM; $75K investment for Parks; $250K for DWTN
100 participants @ $25 / mo.
150% of current
$1500 / mo
Assumes 3.5%, TBD
Current adds in Public Works allocation; See Staffing sheet
Assumes citation mailing by vendor, see software cost
100 (Parks) 200 (DWTN) permits paid by PBDs @$5, respectively
Estimate
$15k / month estimate

Proportional to Net Income, repays General Fund to even

Pessimistic
Time Blocks
Day of Week
M
Tu
W
Th
F
S
S
Hours in Period

Midnight to 8AM 8AM - 5PM
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
C
8
9

5PM - Midnight
D
D
D
7

January
3.43
85%
$
84,312
$
74,462

March
4.43
90%
$ 115,309
$ 101,838

Weekly Revenue Summary

LEGEND

# periods / wk # vehicles / time # vehicles / wk
Unsubsidized / time
Unsubsidized / wk
Subsidized / timeSubsidized / wk
6
42
254 $
461 $
2,766 $
461 $
2,766
5
1,299
6,496 $
3,195 $
15,977 $
3,136 $
15,679
1
1,521
1,521 $
3,257 $
3,257 $
2,362 $
2,362
3
1,200
3,601 $
2,310 $
6,930 $
1,581 $
4,743
Weekly
11,872
$
28,931
$
25,551
Note: Model does not account for on-street permits in occupancy or revenue

Config Input
Policy Input
Assumption
T/F = Check Cell

Time Blocks
A
B
C
D

Global Occupancy Tuner

50%
% of Observed

Seasonality
Weeks
Seasonality Adjustment
Unsubsidized Rev. Projected
Subsidized Rev. Projected

February
4.00
85%
$
98,364
$
86,873

$
$

April
4.29
75%
92,991
82,127

$
$

May
4.43
70%
89,685
79,207

$
$

June
4.29
65%
80,593
71,177

$
$

July
4.43
55%
70,467
62,234

August
4.43
60%
$
76,873
$
67,892

September
4.29
85%
$ 105,390
$
93,078

October
4.43
90%
$ 115,309
$ 101,838

Time Block A

Core

North

Overnight
Midnight to 8AM

303 Available Spaces
12.30% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
2.46% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

380 Available Spaces
27.12% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
5.42% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

Up to
Flat Rate

$
$

Annual
Notes
50.14
1 week off January and December
78%
Purple = Informed by Observed Data
1,137,595
1,004,693

South
219 Available Spaces
32.68% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
6.54% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

8.00 Hours in Time Block

8.00 Hours in Time Block

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.02 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.05 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.07 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

# Vehicles
7
7
Total Zone

$
$
$

Revenue
15.00
15.00
111.76

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
15.00 $
111.76
$
15.00 $
111.76
$
111.76
TRUE

TRUE
100%
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
21 $
10.00 $
10.00 $
206.09
21 $
10.00 $
10.00 $
206.09
Total Zone $
206.09 $
206.09
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

Time Block B

Core

North

Monday to Friday
8AM to 5PM

303 Available Spaces
76.17% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
38.08% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
1.84 Average Hours Parked
1.87 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
84.40% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
42.20% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.80 Average Hours Parked
1.36 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

December
3.43
85%
$
84,312
$
74,462

8.00 Hours in Time Block

TRUE
100%
100%

$
$

November
4.29
100%
$ 123,989
$ 109,503

TRUE
25%
25%
25%
15%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
141
141
141
85
28
11
6
6
6
566
Total Zone

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Revenue
Free
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
2.67
1,511.17

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
1.00 $
141.50
$
3.00 $
424.49
$
5.00 $
424.49
$
7.00 $
198.09
$
9.00 $
101.88
$
11.00 $
62.26
$
13.00 $
73.58
$
15.00 $
84.90
$
2.67 $ 1,511.17
$ 1,511.17
TRUE

$
$

TRUE
15%
15%
20%
20%
10%
10%
5%
3%
2%
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
77
Free
$
$
77 $
1.00 $
1.00 $
77.45
103 $
2.00 $
2.00 $
206.54
103 $
3.00 $
3.00 $
309.81
52 $
4.00 $
4.00 $
206.54
52 $
5.00 $
5.00 $
258.17
26 $
6.00 $
6.00 $
154.90
15 $
7.00 $
7.00 $
108.43
10 $
8.00 $
8.00 $
82.62
516 $
2.72 $
2.72 $ 1,404.47
Total Zone $ 1,404.47 $ 1,404.47
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

6/11/26

TRUE
100%
100%

# Vehicles
14
14
Total Zone

$
$
$

Revenue
10.00
10.00
143.13

$
$

Total Revenue
143.13
143.13
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

42
461
461

$
$
$

Adj Revenue
10.00
10.00
143.13

South

$
$

219 Available Spaces
48.20% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
24.10% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.19 Average Hours Parked
0.99 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
20%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2%
2%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
43
54
43
33
22
11
4
4
2
217
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
21.69
48.80
54.23
37.96
19.52
23.86
14.10
220.16
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

1,299
3,195
3,136

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.29
279.81

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
6.50
1.02
220.16

Pessimistic
Time Block C

Core

North

Saturday
8AM to 5PM

303 Available Spaces
91.72% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
45.86% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.01 Average Hours Parked
2.05 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
78.73% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
39.36% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.65 Average Hours Parked
1.34 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

$
$

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TRUE
20%
20%
30%
20%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
124
124
187
124
31
12
6
6
6
622
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
$
1.00
$
3.00
$
5.00
$
7.00
$
9.00
$
11.00
$
13.00
$
15.00
$
3.02
$ 1,879.04

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
0.50 $
62.22
$
1.50 $
279.99
$
3.50 $
435.54
$
5.50 $
171.10
$
7.50 $
93.33
$
9.50 $
59.11
$
11.50 $
71.55
$
13.50 $
84.00
$
2.02 $ 1,256.84
$ 1,256.84
TRUE

$
$

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
76
Free
$
$
102
Free
$
$
102 $
1.00 $
0.50 $
50.90
76 $
2.00 $
1.50 $
114.52
76 $
3.00 $
2.50 $
190.87
25 $
4.00 $
3.50 $
89.07
25 $
5.00 $
4.50 $
114.52
15 $
6.00 $
5.50 $
83.98
10 $
7.00 $
6.50 $
66.17
509 $
1.72 $
1.40 $
710.03
Total Zone $
875.45 $
710.03
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

Core

North

Thursday - Saturday
5PM to Midnight

303 Available Spaces
81.82% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
40.91% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
1.98 Average Hours Parked
1.45 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
67.94% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
33.97% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
2.42 Average Hours Parked
0.98 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TRUE
15%
20%
30%
30%
5%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
66
88
132
132
22
N/A
439
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
$
1.00
$
3.00
$
5.00
$
7.00
$
9.00
$
11.00
$
13.00
N/A
$
2.95
$ 1,296.02

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
0.50 $
43.93
$
1.50 $
197.70
$
3.50 $
461.29
$
5.50 $
120.82
$
7.50 $
$
9.50 $
$
11.50 $
N/A
N/A
$
1.88 $
823.74
$
823.74
TRUE

$
$

TRUE
15%
20%
20%
15%
15%
5%
5%
3%
2%
100%

Time Block D

$
$

South

$
$

TRUE
10%
20%
25%
25%
12%
5%
2%
1%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
37
Free
$
$
75
Free
$
$
93 $
1.00 $
0.50 $
46.68
93 $
2.00 $
1.50 $
140.03
45 $
3.00 $
2.50 $
112.02
19 $
4.00 $
3.50 $
65.35
7 $
5.00 $
4.50 $
33.61
4 $
6.00 $
5.50 $
20.54
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
373 $
1.47 $
1.12 $
418.22
Total Zone $
548.91 $
418.22
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

219 Available Spaces
86.61% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
43.31% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.19 Average Hours Parked
1.78 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
20%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2%
2%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
78
97
78
58
39
19
8
8
4
390
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
38.98
87.70
97.44
68.21
35.08
42.87
25.33
395.61
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

1,521
3,257
2,362

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.29
502.79

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
6.50
1.02
395.61

South

$
$

219 Available Spaces
83.58% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
41.79% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
2.13 Average Hours Parked
1.77 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
15%
20%
25%
25%
15%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
58
78
97
97
58
N/A
388
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
N/A

$
$

1.20
465.15

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
N/A
$
0.88
$
339.17
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
48.45
145.36
145.36
N/A
$
339.17
TRUE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

6/11/26

1,200
2,310
1,581

Conservative
Parking Operations Statement of Activties
Revenue
Paid On-Street Parking
Off-Street Lot - MLK
Off-Street Lot - Hutchison
City Park Lot
Parking Enforcement Fines
Uncollectable Fines
Special Event Fees
Residential Parking Permits
Other Operating Income
Revenue Subtotal

EXISTING BASELINE
T12 (Apr '25 - Mar '26)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Expense
Depreciation Expense
$
Employee Parking Program
$
Fuel (Enforcement)
$
Maintenance and Repairs
$
Merchant Services (CC Fees)
Personnel
$
Postage
$
Residential PP Fees Paid
$
Signage
$
Software
$
Supplies
$
Telephone
$
Training
$
Uniforms
$
Expense Subtotal
$

EXISTING
Existing T12

PROJECTION AFTER PBD
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
$
$
$ 1,507,039
4,642 $
$
$
15,000
19,205 $
$
$
$
$
265,263 $
600,772 $
695,509
$
(210,270) $
(173,877)
$
6,000
245 $
250
414,594 $
527,882 $
265,263 $ 1,522,039

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
Notes
1,507,039 See Time Block model next sheet
15,000 Estimate
Moved to paid hourly in North Zone after alley improvement project complete
265,263 Estimated based on 9.5 months of data through March 2026
695,509 Historic + Estimated based on 9.5 months of data through March 2026
(173,877) Assumed improved 75% collection rate
6,000 Placeholder TXST $1000 x 6 games
250 Need to validate current number
e.g. Parking Fee in Lieu
2,315,184

PROJECTION
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
18,000 $
18,000 $
17,400 $
57,998
8,758 $
$
30,000
8,691 $
13,037
1,279 $
18,000
Unk $
18,476 $
9,284 $
53,271
299,825 $
757,900
179 $
500
$
$
500 $
1,000
$
12,000 $
5,000 $
10,000
84,079 $
180,000
5,002 $
10,000
1,732 $
3,000
$
10,000
1,723 $
3,000
429,268 $ 1,043,912 $
32,184 $
152,270

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
93,398
30,000
13,037
18,000
81,031
757,900
500
1,500
27,000
180,000
10,000
3,000
10,000
3,000
1,228,366

$

1,086,818

Net

$

(14,674) $

(516,031) $

233,079

Base Ops Charge

$

-

516,031

$

(75,039) $

(440,992) $

Net to Benefit District

$

(14,674) $

-

$

158,040

928,778

$

$

$

1,369,769

6/11/26

$

1,086,818

Notes
6% WACC, 5 YR AM; $75K investment for Parks; $250K for DWTN
100 participants @ $25 / mo.
150% of current
$1500 / mo
Assumes 3.5%, TBD
Current adds in Public Works allocation; See Staffing sheet
Assumes citation mailing by vendor, see software cost
100 (Parks) 200 (DWTN) permits paid by PBDs @$5, respectively
Estimate
$15k / month estimate

Proportional to Net Income, repays General Fund to even

Conservative
Time Blocks
Day of Week
M
Tu
W
Th
F
S
S
Hours in Period

Midnight to 8AM 8AM - 5PM
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
C
8
9

5PM - Midnight
D
D
D
7

January
3.43
85%
$ 126,468
$ 111,693

March
4.43
90%
$ 172,964
$ 152,757

Weekly Revenue Summary

LEGEND

# periods / wk # vehicles / time # vehicles / wk
Unsubsidized / time
Unsubsidized / wk
Subsidized / timeSubsidized / wk
6
64
381 $
691 $
4,149 $
691 $
4,149
5
1,949
9,744 $
4,793 $
23,966 $
4,704 $
23,518
1
2,281
2,281 $
4,886 $
4,886 $
3,544 $
3,544
3
1,801
5,402 $
3,465 $
10,395 $
2,372 $
7,115
Weekly
17,809
$
43,396
$
38,326
Note: Model does not account for on-street permits in occupancy or revenue

Config Input
Policy Input
Assumption
T/F = Check Cell

Time Blocks
A
B
C
D

Global Occupancy Tuner

75%
% of Observed

Seasonality
Weeks
Seasonality Adjustment
Unsubsidized Rev. Projected
Subsidized Rev. Projected

February
4.00
85%
$ 147,546
$ 130,309

$
$

April
4.29
75%
139,487
123,191

$
$

May
4.43
70%
134,528
118,811

$
$

June
4.29
65%
120,889
106,766

$
$

July
4.43
55%
105,700
93,352

August
4.43
60%
$ 115,309
$ 101,838

September
4.29
85%
$ 158,085
$ 139,617

October
4.43
90%
$ 172,964
$ 152,757

Time Block A

Core

North

Overnight
Midnight to 8AM

303 Available Spaces
12.30% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
3.69% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

380 Available Spaces
27.12% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
8.14% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

Up to
Flat Rate

$
$

Annual
Notes
50.14
1 week off January and December
78%
Purple = Informed by Observed Data
1,706,392
1,507,039

South
219 Available Spaces
32.68% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
9.80% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

8.00 Hours in Time Block

8.00 Hours in Time Block

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.04 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.08 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.10 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

# Vehicles
11
11
Total Zone

$
$
$

Revenue
15.00
15.00
167.64

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
15.00 $
167.64
$
15.00 $
167.64
$
167.64
TRUE

TRUE
100%
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
31 $
10.00 $
10.00 $
309.14
31 $
10.00 $
10.00 $
309.14
Total Zone $
309.14 $
309.14
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

Time Block B

Core

North

Monday to Friday
8AM to 5PM

303 Available Spaces
76.17% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
57.13% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
1.84 Average Hours Parked
2.80 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
84.40% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
63.30% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.80 Average Hours Parked
2.04 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

December
3.43
85%
$ 126,468
$ 111,693

8.00 Hours in Time Block

TRUE
100%
100%

$
$

November
4.29
100%
$ 185,983
$ 164,255

TRUE
25%
25%
25%
15%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
212
212
212
127
42
17
8
8
8
849
Total Zone

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Revenue
Free
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
2.67
2,266.76

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
1.00 $
212.24
$
3.00 $
636.73
$
5.00 $
636.73
$
7.00 $
297.14
$
9.00 $
152.82
$
11.00 $
93.39
$
13.00 $
110.37
$
15.00 $
127.35
$
2.67 $ 2,266.76
$ 2,266.76
TRUE

$
$

TRUE
15%
15%
20%
20%
10%
10%
5%
3%
2%
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
116
Free
$
$
116 $
1.00 $
1.00 $
116.18
155 $
2.00 $
2.00 $
309.81
155 $
3.00 $
3.00 $
464.71
77 $
4.00 $
4.00 $
309.81
77 $
5.00 $
5.00 $
387.26
39 $
6.00 $
6.00 $
232.36
23 $
7.00 $
7.00 $
162.65
15 $
8.00 $
8.00 $
123.92
775 $
2.72 $
2.72 $ 2,106.70
Total Zone $ 2,106.70 $ 2,106.70
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

6/11/26

TRUE
100%
100%

# Vehicles
21
21
Total Zone

$
$
$

Revenue
10.00
10.00
214.70

$
$

Total Revenue
214.70
214.70
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

64
691
691

$
$
$

Adj Revenue
10.00
10.00
214.70

South

$
$

219 Available Spaces
48.20% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
36.15% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.19 Average Hours Parked
1.49 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
20%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2%
2%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
65
81
65
49
33
16
7
7
3
325
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
32.54
73.21
81.34
56.94
29.28
35.79
21.15
330.24
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

1,949
4,793
4,704

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.29
419.71

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
6.50
1.02
330.24

Conservative
Time Block C

Core

North

Saturday
8AM to 5PM

303 Available Spaces
91.72% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
68.79% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.01 Average Hours Parked
3.08 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
78.73% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
59.05% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.65 Average Hours Parked
2.01 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

$
$

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TRUE
20%
20%
30%
20%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
187
187
280
187
47
19
9
9
9
933
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
$
1.00
$
3.00
$
5.00
$
7.00
$
9.00
$
11.00
$
13.00
$
15.00
$
3.02
$ 2,818.56

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
0.50 $
93.33
$
1.50 $
419.98
$
3.50 $
653.31
$
5.50 $
256.66
$
7.50 $
139.99
$
9.50 $
88.66
$
11.50 $
107.33
$
13.50 $
126.00
$
2.02 $ 1,885.26
$ 1,885.26
TRUE

$
$

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
115
Free
$
$
153
Free
$
$
153 $
1.00 $
0.50 $
76.35
115 $
2.00 $
1.50 $
171.78
115 $
3.00 $
2.50 $
286.30
38 $
4.00 $
3.50 $
133.61
38 $
5.00 $
4.50 $
171.78
23 $
6.00 $
5.50 $
125.97
15 $
7.00 $
6.50 $
99.25
763 $
1.72 $
1.40 $ 1,065.04
Total Zone $ 1,313.17 $ 1,065.04
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

Core

North

Thursday - Saturday
5PM to Midnight

303 Available Spaces
81.82% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
61.36% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
1.98 Average Hours Parked
2.17 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
67.94% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
50.96% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
2.42 Average Hours Parked
1.47 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TRUE
15%
20%
30%
30%
5%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
99
132
198
198
33
N/A
659
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
$
1.00
$
3.00
$
5.00
$
7.00
$
9.00
$
11.00
$
13.00
N/A
$
2.95
$ 1,944.03

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
0.50 $
65.90
$
1.50 $
296.55
$
3.50 $
691.94
$
5.50 $
181.22
$
7.50 $
$
9.50 $
$
11.50 $
N/A
N/A
$
1.88 $ 1,235.61
$ 1,235.61
TRUE

$
$

TRUE
15%
20%
20%
15%
15%
5%
5%
3%
2%
100%

Time Block D

$
$

South

$
$

TRUE
10%
20%
25%
25%
12%
5%
2%
1%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
56
Free
$
$
112
Free
$
$
140 $
1.00 $
0.50 $
70.01
140 $
2.00 $
1.50 $
210.04
67 $
3.00 $
2.50 $
168.03
28 $
4.00 $
3.50 $
98.02
11 $
5.00 $
4.50 $
50.41
6 $
6.00 $
5.50 $
30.81
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
560 $
1.47 $
1.12 $
627.32
Total Zone $
823.36 $
627.32
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

219 Available Spaces
86.61% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
64.96% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.19 Average Hours Parked
2.67 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
20%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2%
2%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
117
146
117
88
58
29
12
12
6
585
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
58.46
131.54
146.16
102.31
52.62
64.31
38.00
593.41
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

2,281
4,886
3,544

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.29
754.18

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
6.50
1.02
593.41

South

$
$

219 Available Spaces
83.58% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
62.69% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
2.13 Average Hours Parked
2.65 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
15%
20%
25%
25%
15%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
87
116
145
145
87
N/A
581
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
N/A

$
$

1.20
697.73

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
N/A
$
0.88
$
508.76
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
72.68
218.04
218.04
N/A
$
508.76
TRUE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

6/11/26

1,801
3,465
2,372

Aggressive
Parking Operations Statement of Activties
Revenue
Paid On-Street Parking
Off-Street Lot - MLK
Off-Street Lot - Hutchison
City Park Lot
Parking Enforcement Fines
Uncollectable Fines
Special Event Fees
Residential Parking Permits
Other Operating Income
Revenue Subtotal

EXISTING BASELINE
T12 (Apr '25 - Mar '26)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Expense
Depreciation Expense
$
Employee Parking Program
$
Fuel (Enforcement)
$
Maintenance and Repairs
$
Merchant Services (CC Fees)
Personnel
$
Postage
$
Residential PP Fees Paid
$
Signage
$
Software
$
Supplies
$
Telephone
$
Training
$
Uniforms
$
Expense Subtotal
$

EXISTING
Existing T12

PROJECTION AFTER PBD
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
$
$
$ 2,009,386
4,642 $
$
$
15,000
19,205 $
$
$
$
$
265,263 $
600,772 $
695,509
$
(210,270) $
(173,877)
$
6,000
245 $
250
414,594 $
527,882 $
265,263 $ 2,024,386

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
Notes
2,009,386 See Time Block model next sheet
15,000 Estimate
Moved to paid hourly in North Zone after alley improvement project complete
265,263 Estimated based on 9.5 months of data through March 2026
695,509 Historic + Estimated based on 9.5 months of data through March 2026
(173,877) Assumed improved 75% collection rate
6,000 Placeholder TXST $1000 x 6 games
250 Need to validate current number
e.g. Parking Fee in Lieu
2,817,531

PROJECTION
Base Operations Parks PBD
Downtown PBD
18,000 $
18,000 $
17,400 $
57,998
8,758 $
$
30,000
8,691 $
13,037
1,279 $
18,000
Unk $
18,476 $
9,284 $
70,853
299,825 $
757,900
179 $
500
$
$
500 $
1,000
$
12,000 $
5,000 $
10,000
84,079 $
180,000
5,002 $
10,000
1,732 $
3,000
$
10,000
1,723 $
3,000
429,268 $ 1,043,912 $
32,184 $
169,852

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total
93,398
30,000
13,037
18,000
98,614
757,900
500
1,500
27,000
180,000
10,000
3,000
10,000
3,000
1,245,948

$

1,571,583

Net

$

(14,674) $

(516,031) $

233,079

Base Ops Charge

$

-

516,031

$

(57,614) $

(458,416) $

Net to Benefit District

$

(14,674) $

-

$

175,465

1,396,117

$

$

$

1,854,534

6/11/26

$

1,571,583

Notes
6% WACC, 5 YR AM; $75K investment for Parks; $250K for DWTN
100 participants @ $25 / mo.
150% of current
$1500 / mo
Assumes 3.5%, TBD
Current adds in Public Works allocation; See Staffing sheet
Assumes citation mailing by vendor, see software cost
100 (Parks) 200 (DWTN) permits paid by PBDs @$5, respectively
Estimate
$15k / month estimate

Proportional to Net Income, repays General Fund to even

Aggressive
Time Blocks
Day of Week
M
Tu
W
Th
F
S
S
Hours in Period

Midnight to 8AM 8AM - 5PM
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
C
8
9

5PM - Midnight
D
D
D
7

January
3.43
85%
$ 168,624
$ 148,924

March
4.43
90%
$ 230,619
$ 203,676

Weekly Revenue Summary

LEGEND

# periods / wk # vehicles / time # vehicles / wk
Unsubsidized / time
Unsubsidized / wk
Subsidized / timeSubsidized / wk
6
85
508 $
922 $
5,532 $
922 $
5,532
5
2,598
12,992 $
6,391 $
31,954 $
6,272 $
31,358
1
3,042
3,042 $
6,515 $
6,515 $
4,725 $
4,725
3
2,401
7,202 $
4,620 $
13,860 $
3,162 $
9,487
Weekly
23,745
$
57,861
$
51,102
Note: Model does not account for on-street permits in occupancy or revenue

Config Input
Policy Input
Assumption
T/F = Check Cell

Time Blocks
A
B
C
D

Global Occupancy Tuner

100%
% of Observed

Seasonality
Weeks
Seasonality Adjustment
Unsubsidized Rev. Projected
Subsidized Rev. Projected

February
4.00
85%
$ 196,729
$ 173,745

$
$

April
4.29
75%
185,983
164,255

$
$

May
4.43
70%
179,370
158,415

$
$

June
4.29
65%
161,185
142,354

$
$

July
4.43
55%
140,934
124,469

August
4.43
60%
$ 153,746
$ 135,784

September
4.29
85%
$ 210,781
$ 186,156

October
4.43
90%
$ 230,619
$ 203,676

Time Block A

Core

North

Overnight
Midnight to 8AM

303 Available Spaces
12.30% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
4.92% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

380 Available Spaces
27.12% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
10.85% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

Up to
Flat Rate

$
$

Annual
Notes
50.14
1 week off January and December
78%
Purple = Informed by Observed Data
2,275,190
2,009,386

South
219 Available Spaces
32.68% Observed Occupancy
40% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
13.07% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)

8.00 Hours in Time Block

8.00 Hours in Time Block

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.05 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.11 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

8.00 Average Hours Parked
0.13 Implied Turnover for Time Block
100% % Non-Residents

# Vehicles
15
15
Total Zone

$
$
$

Revenue
15.00
15.00
223.52

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
15.00 $
223.52
$
15.00 $
223.52
$
223.52
TRUE

TRUE
100%
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
41 $
10.00 $
10.00 $
412.18
41 $
10.00 $
10.00 $
412.18
Total Zone $
412.18 $
412.18
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

Time Block B

Core

North

Monday to Friday
8AM to 5PM

303 Available Spaces
76.17% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
76.17% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
1.84 Average Hours Parked
3.74 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
84.40% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
84.40% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.80 Average Hours Parked
2.72 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

December
3.43
85%
$ 168,624
$ 148,924

8.00 Hours in Time Block

TRUE
100%
100%

$
$

November
4.29
100%
$ 247,977
$ 219,007

TRUE
25%
25%
25%
15%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
283
283
283
170
57
23
11
11
11
1,132
Total Zone

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Revenue
Free
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
2.67
3,022.35

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
1.00 $
282.99
$
3.00 $
848.97
$
5.00 $
848.97
$
7.00 $
396.19
$
9.00 $
203.75
$
11.00 $
124.52
$
13.00 $
147.16
$
15.00 $
169.79
$
2.67 $ 3,022.35
$ 3,022.35
TRUE

$
$

TRUE
15%
15%
20%
20%
10%
10%
5%
3%
2%
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
155
Free
$
$
155 $
1.00 $
1.00 $
154.90
207 $
2.00 $
2.00 $
413.08
207 $
3.00 $
3.00 $
619.62
103 $
4.00 $
4.00 $
413.08
103 $
5.00 $
5.00 $
516.35
52 $
6.00 $
6.00 $
309.81
31 $
7.00 $
7.00 $
216.87
21 $
8.00 $
8.00 $
165.23
1,033 $
2.72 $
2.72 $ 2,808.94
Total Zone $ 2,808.94 $ 2,808.94
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

6/11/26

TRUE
100%
100%

# Vehicles
29
29
Total Zone

$
$
$

Revenue
10.00
10.00
286.26

$
$

Total Revenue
286.26
286.26
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

85
922
922

$
$
$

Adj Revenue
10.00
10.00
286.26

South

$
$

219 Available Spaces
48.20% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
48.20% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.19 Average Hours Parked
1.98 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
20%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2%
2%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
87
108
87
65
43
22
9
9
4
434
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
43.38
97.61
108.45
75.92
39.04
47.72
28.20
440.32
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

2,598
6,391
6,272

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.29
559.61

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
6.50
1.02
440.32

Aggressive
Time Block C

Core

North

Saturday
8AM to 5PM

303 Available Spaces
91.72% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
91.72% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.01 Average Hours Parked
4.11 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
78.73% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
78.73% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.65 Average Hours Parked
2.68 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

$
$

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TRUE
20%
20%
30%
20%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
249
249
373
249
62
25
12
12
12
1,244
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
$
1.00
$
3.00
$
5.00
$
7.00
$
9.00
$
11.00
$
13.00
$
15.00
$
3.02
$ 3,758.08

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
0.50 $
124.44
$
1.50 $
559.98
$
3.50 $
871.08
$
5.50 $
342.21
$
7.50 $
186.66
$
9.50 $
118.22
$
11.50 $
143.11
$
13.50 $
167.99
$
2.02 $ 2,513.68
$ 2,513.68
TRUE

$
$

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
153
Free
$
$
204
Free
$
$
204 $
1.00 $
0.50 $
101.80
153 $
2.00 $
1.50 $
229.04
153 $
3.00 $
2.50 $
381.74
51 $
4.00 $
3.50 $
178.14
51 $
5.00 $
4.50 $
229.04
31 $
6.00 $
5.50 $
167.96
20 $
7.00 $
6.50 $
132.34
1,018 $
1.72 $
1.40 $ 1,420.06
Total Zone $ 1,750.90 $ 1,420.06
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

Core

North

Thursday - Saturday
5PM to Midnight

303 Available Spaces
81.82% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
81.82% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
1.98 Average Hours Parked
2.90 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
2.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

380 Available Spaces
67.94% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
67.94% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
2.42 Average Hours Parked
1.97 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents

Up to
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TRUE
15%
20%
30%
30%
5%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
132
176
264
264
44
N/A
879
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
$
1.00
$
3.00
$
5.00
$
7.00
$
9.00
$
11.00
$
13.00
N/A
$
2.95
$ 2,592.04

Adj Revenue Total Revenue
$
$
$
0.50 $
87.87
$
1.50 $
395.40
$
3.50 $
922.59
$
5.50 $
241.63
$
7.50 $
$
9.50 $
$
11.50 $
N/A
N/A
$
1.88 $ 1,647.48
$ 1,647.48
TRUE

$
$

TRUE
15%
20%
20%
15%
15%
5%
5%
3%
2%
100%

Time Block D

$
$

South

$
$

TRUE
10%
20%
25%
25%
12%
5%
2%
1%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
Revenue
Adj Revenue Total Revenue
75
Free
$
$
149
Free
$
$
187 $
1.00 $
0.50 $
93.35
187 $
2.00 $
1.50 $
280.05
90 $
3.00 $
2.50 $
224.04
37 $
4.00 $
3.50 $
130.69
15 $
5.00 $
4.50 $
67.21
7 $
6.00 $
5.50 $
41.07
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
747 $
1.47 $
1.12 $
836.43
Total Zone $ 1,097.82 $
836.43
TRUE
Note: Includes 32 spaces currently monthly parking in Hutchison St. lot

219 Available Spaces
86.61% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
86.61% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
9.00 Hours in Time Block
2.19 Average Hours Parked
3.56 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
20%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2%
2%
1%
100%

# Vehicles
156
195
156
117
78
39
16
16
8
780
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
77.95
175.39
194.88
136.42
70.16
85.75
50.67
791.21
TRUE

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

3,042
6,515
4,725

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1.29
1,005.58

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
6.50
1.02
791.21

South

$
$

219 Available Spaces
83.58% Observed Occupancy
100% Time Block Occupancy Tuner (% of Observed)
83.58% Applied Occupancy (Time Block + Global Occupancy Tuner)
7.00 Hours in Time Block
2.13 Average Hours Parked
3.54 Implied Turnover for Time Block
1.00 1st Hour
1.00 Add'l
50% % Non-Residents
TRUE
15%
20%
25%
25%
15%
0%
0%
0%
N/A
100%

# Vehicles
116
155
194
194
116
N/A
775
Total Zone

Revenue
Free
Free
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
N/A

$
$

1.20
930.30

Adj Revenue
0.50
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
N/A
$
0.88
$
678.35
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Total Revenue
96.91
290.72
290.72
N/A
$
678.35
TRUE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Vehicles per Period
w/o Resident Subsidy $
Time Block Revenue $

6/11/26

2,401
4,620
3,162

APPENDIX F
Downtown Parking Benefit District Application

Downtown Parking Analysis and PBD Recommendation

Application to Establish a Parking Benefit District
Submitted to: San Marcos City Council
Submitted by: Parking Advisory Board
Date: Simultaneous with PAB Resolution 2026-02RR-PAB

1. Executive Summary
The San Marcos Parking Advisory Board recommends that a Parking Benefit District
(also referred to as the “PBD” or “District” herein) be implemented downtown. The
board has prepared a detailed report to support and outline this recommendation
titled Downtown San Marcos Parking Analysis and Parking Benefit District
Recommendation (the “Report”) dated June 2026. A full executive summary can be
found beginning on page 3 of that report. This application document serves to help
locate the required elements of a parking benefit district application within the
Report.
2. Proposed District Boundaries and Map
The district is proposed to contain three parking zones:
• A Downtown Core bounded by University Dr. and San Antonio St. to the north
and south and Fredericksburg St. and Lyndon Baines Johnson Dr. (LBJ) to the
west and east
• A North of Hopkins area running from Hopkins St. up to the Texas State
University campus, bounded on the west by Moore St. and on the east by CM
Allen Pkwy
• A South of Hopkins area that extends south from Hopkins to one block south of
the Moore St / North St / San Antonio St intersection along San Antonio to
Commanche, down Commanche to Martin Luthur King Jr. Blvd (MLK), over to
Guadalupe St, down Guadalupe St to Cheatham St, and over to CM Allan Pkwy
The proposed Parking Benefit District map can be found on page 24 of the Report
and is also included on the following page.

Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4

3. Justification
Justification for the creation of a district can be found in the ‘Existing Conditions &
Objectives’ section of the Report on starting on page 5. Issues are summarized
within the Executive Summary on pages 3 & 4 and listed in more detail on pages 19 –
21 of the Report.
4. Anticipated regulations and rates
Recommended regulations and rates can be found on pg. 27 and within the
Appendix of the Report.
5. Revenue Allocation Plan
Revenues are proposed to first be used to pay for direct expenses of the Downtown
PBD (i.e., equipment and parking related capital expenses, signage, merchant
service processing fees), to fund the City’s Employee Parking Program, and to all
costs associated with any Residential Parking Zone Program established within ¼
miles of the Downtown PBD.
Base parking operations expenses utilized across the entire City, such as software,
parking management and enforcement personnel and equipment, and other
overhead expenses are proposed to continue to be paid from the City’s General
Fund. Any revenue from citations, including those issued downtown, is also
proposed to stay with the General Fund.
If the City’s base parking operations result in a loss at the end of each fiscal year,
said loss may be determined to be the City’s “cost of service” for parking
management services. It is then proposed that the Downtown Parking Benefit
District make a transfer payment equal to the resulting loss (if any), such that base
parking operations is a revenue/expense neutral function of the City.
In the event there are other PBDs created (for example, a Parks PBD), it is proposed
that the PBDs would pay make transfer payments to the General Fund in proportion
to the total revenue generated by each PBD. By way of example, if there are two
PBDs established (Downtown and Parks) that generated $700,000 and $300,000 in
revenue, respectively, during a fiscal year and the City’s cost of service for parking
was ($500,000), then, the Downtown PBD would make a transfer payment of

Page 3 of 4

$350,000 (70%) to the General Fund at the end of that fiscal year and the Parks PBD
would make a transfer payment of $150,000 (30%) to the General Fund.
Once costs are covered, 100% of any revenue remaining shall be reinvested in the
Downtown PBD toward improvements or maintenance activities that:
a. Promote walking, cycling, and public transit use;
b. Enhance the public realm;
c. Improve parking ekiciency or availability.
The Parking Advisory Board would receive applications from citizens or other City
departments for the use of excess revenues and make a recommendation to the
City Council annually as to which projects to include in the City’s budget (or
amounts to hold in the PBD) with the City Council having ultimate authority over
project funding.
6. Community Support
Results of various stakeholder and community surveys can be found beginning on
pg. 7 of the Report.
7. Financial Projections
Financial projections can be found beginning on pg. 29 of the Report.
8. Legal and Policy Framework
All required elements of an application for a Parking Benefit District as outlined in
section 82.302(e) are contained herein. Note that the proposed district contains
more than the 100 potential paid parking spaces required by 82.302(a). The Parking
Advisory Board recommends the City’s legal department draft a formal ordinance
incorporating the recommendations of the Report and this Application for adoption
by the City Council.

Page 4 of 4