Staff propose wider eligibility and fee changes for Raleigh residential permit parking program

Caitlin Parker, Raleigh’s parking manager, briefed the City Council on a staff package of changes to the Residential Permit Parking program intended to address equity, growth and administrative issues.

Parker said the program, created in 1979 and substantially revised in February 2018, now has 13 zones and has only recently been expanded to townhomes and duplexes (2023). The staff evaluation used a city survey (916 respondents, 831 comments) and field counts. Parker showed Zone U (near Hillsborough Street) as an example: 261 properties in the zone, 235 eligible under current rules and 446 on‑street spaces (about 9,000 linear feet).

Staff recommended allowing all property types to participate except properties with more than 12 residential units and schools, while limiting permits to four per property (not per unit). Parker said the recommendation is for an annual permit fee increase from $20 to $30 and a guest permit price of $2; caregiver permits (for hospice, home health or nanny services) would be free. “We do propose that we increase the costs from 20 to $30 and increase the guest permit cost to $2,” Parker said. Staff said the additional revenue would be used for customer service improvements such as sign replacement and better online processes.

Other details: the program team used aerial imagery (IMAPS) starting in 2024 to determine eligibility and identified cases where previously eligible buildings (converted single‑family homes or garden apartments) no longer meet criteria. Staff proposed excluding multiunit buildings above 12 units and requiring property‑level permit counts (four total for the property at 300 Chamberlain, the example shown). Parker said staff verified on‑street supply and believe a four‑permit cap preserves availability for residents, guest passes and short‑term nonpermit parking.

Council questions focused on supply and enforcement. Parker said staff collected on‑street counts and approximate driveway capacity by visual survey and that the four‑permit cap was selected to reflect supply. Councilor Patton questioned whether a $2 guest permit would cover cost‑to‑serve; Parker said full cost recovery would require higher fees but staff prioritized community acceptance and that the program’s administrative cost is substantial (staff labor about $90,000/year). Paul Kalman of Transportation said the recommendations can be adjusted over time: “This can be kind of static. So if we see like we need to make changes down the road, we can do that as well.”

Mayor Porto and other council members praised the staff outreach; the mayor noted the caregiver fee change as a sensitive policy choice. Staff recommended renaming the program (staff suggested “Per‑Permit Parking Program”) and said the package will be returned to council in a future meeting for formal adoption if council gives direction.

Why it matters: the proposed changes would broaden eligibility and alter cost and permit limits citywide, affecting residents near commercial corridors and university neighborhoods. The staff analysis attempted to balance resident priority, business needs and limited on‑street supply.

Next steps: staff will bring an ordinance back for council adoption and continue to refine outreach, enforcement and the online renewal process.