09/12/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bennett said he was interested in getting away from the concept of free e parking because it is not really free. Mr. Gleason said that $35 is about the break-even point if taxes and operations have to be paid. Mr. Hibschman said the Overpark has to get $70 for every space to cover the operating costs that include debt service. Mr. Holmer asked about the cost if there was debt service but no taxes. Mr. Gleason said about $65. Mr. Bennett said he would like to see some more numbers on that. Ms. Wooten agreed that it is neces- sary to get away from free parking. Mr. Bennett said a number of retailers have expressed an interest in getting away from free parking and were con- cerned on what ideas there were for transition. Ms. Ehrman said there was no consensus on the Downtown Development District Review Group but they felt it might be time for the City Council to examine the issue. She said it seems to her that a small group is being taxed to benefit the whole city. Ms. Wooten asked about reactions from individual property owners. Mr. Hibschman said that parking seems to be the major concern. Mr. Holmer asked if there are any disadvantages to creating a new urban renewal district instead of expanding the present one. Mr. Hibschman said the main advantage in expanding is to have access to the resources of the established area. Otherwise, he said, the new area would be slow to generate increment like the Riverfront Research Park. Mr. Gleason said there would be a problem with including land already used because of displacement of exist- 'ing parking. If the district is expanded, then that tool would be used to develop parking in the surrounding boundaries. Mr. Bennett said that where new parking structures were located would make a big difference. He said a five-story structure could block the view and the e connecting route and will therefore create separation. He said part of the goal of expansion should be to invite people into downtown. Pat Decker said the five-story example cited earlier was based on a mixed-use area. She said that scale issues could be addressed and the City can talk with property owners that have parking problems. Mr. Gleason said it takes something above three stories to have enough increment flow to pay for replacement and new parking. Mr. Miller asked what kind of increment would be thrown off if a project under development is included. Mr. Hibschman said that every year, on January 1, the assessor determines the value, so a construction project would be assessed at that time. Therefore, the increment would theoretically be seen by the next fall. Mr. Miller said that it may then be better to move now. Mr. Gleason noted that the increment can only be captured if the dis- trict is in place there. Ms. Bascom asked if it would be better to separate the district if there are some projects waiting in the wings. Mr. Gleason said that if you want a high-density area with buildings above three stories, parking must be provided and the public must invest in the parking. He said that any existing cash flow out of the existing district must be focused on parking in that boundary, Mr. Rutan said what the council is trying to accomplish is to see if there are any opportunities to use urban renewal tools to help development occur in this area. He said the bottom line is to provide public parking facilities that would not occur on their own. Assuming these tools work, he said, then property can be brought into the urban renewal district as demand occurs. He asked if there is a way to have the mechanics in place and then incorporate e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 12, 1988 Page 3