Fresno staff brief council on gated vs. gateless garage automation; council seeks cost and enforcement analysis

City staff and the design team briefed the Fresno City Council on Jan. 30 about an automation project for five downtown city parking garages and sought council feedback on whether to implement a gated or gateless system.

"We're just seeking feedback, specifically related to gateless versus gated automation for these garages," Melissa Almaguer, manager of the city's parking division, told the council. The five garages under study are the Convention Center garage, Congo Alley garage, Underground garage, Spiral garage and the Merced garage; the Merced garage is currently ungated.

Consultants explained the core differences: gated systems use entry and exit barrier gates with a post‑pay model (pay before exit) and generally prevent exit without payment, reducing the risk of lost revenue. Gateless systems allow frictionless entry and require parkers to prepay via pay‑by‑cell app or pay‑on‑foot kiosk and rely on license‑plate recognition (LPR) enforcement. Gateless systems can reduce long entry queues during events, but they require frequent, proactive enforcement and impose enforcement staffing and technology costs.

Peter Felice, the project consultant, summarized municipal experiences from Oakland, Easton (Pa.) and Boulder (Colo.): cities that moved to gateless emphasized education and stepped up LPR enforcement; one city that moved away from gated reported problems with nonpayment and "hangout" behavior in open garages. Consultants also noted state rules matter for enforcement: Colorado allows mailed citations tied to plates in ways California does not.

Council members asked for a clear comparison of total cost (initial capital and ongoing operations, including enforcement staffing), vandalism and downtime risk for pay kiosks, and the interplay with a pending master fee study. Council Member Maxwell noted kiosks and other fixed equipment have been vandalized in the past and asked how the city would cover maintenance or replacement and whether additional parking enforcement officers would be required; Parking Division staff said the initial capital difference between options is modest but that ongoing enforcement/staffing would be a material consideration.

Staff said the capital budget for automation can accommodate either option but recommended further analysis of operating costs and recommended that staff return with a costed recommendation and outreach plan before the city makes a final technology choice.

Council did not adopt a configuration at the meeting; members asked staff to provide comparative cost estimates, expected enforcement staffing needs, vandalism and maintenance projections, and implications for the master fee schedule before a final decision.