Mount Vernon URA considers parking bureau and administrative fee to address legacy retirement and health liabilities

Executive Director Pamela Tarlow proposed at the URA’s Oct. 7 work session that the agency could manage a downtown parking bureau and charge an administrative fee to generate revenue that might be used to address legacy liabilities tied to former URA personnel.

Tarlow described two components of a parking bureau: the operational question of who administers parking enforcement (the URA or the city) and whether a management fee should be included to create a revenue stream to help pay URA obligations. She said the city’s current practice of reducing parking fines in court has limited revenue generation and that enforcement processes differ from neighboring cities.

“I’m sort of pushing on 1 level for us to come up with a revenue scheme for the URA. And this is 1 way we could be doing it,” Tarlow said, adding that staff would prepare a cost‑benefit analysis to clarify whether a parking bureau would bring net revenue after operational costs.

Tarlow also updated the board on long‑standing letters from the state indicating the URA owes retirement and health liabilities tied to former employees. She said the state had proposed a three‑year payback that would amount to about $333,000 per year and that, although interest collection was paused, the ongoing cost and a three‑year balloon payment would be financially onerous.

“They want a 3 year payback. And, at $333,000 a year, which is what that would come to, it's an impossibility unless we just simply give up the URA as it currently exists,” Tarlow said. She added that grant funds cannot be used to pay these legacy debts because HUD grants are restricted by administrative caps and program eligibility.

Board members emphasized the need for transparency about how any parking fee would be used and cautioned about community perceptions that the bureau would be a “revenue scheme.” Tarlow said the 10–15% administrative fee she floated would revert to the city once debts were paid, but that staff first must determine operational feasibility and whether the program would run a surplus.

Ending: Staff will analyze the operational model, produce a cost‑benefit analysis and return with options, including draft fee schedules and procurement/administration models.