Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/1980City Council Minutes December 8, 1980 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 Vice -Mayor Ron Dunin presiding. 1. The City Council met to discuss the second progress report from .Kahn and Associates on the "Community Parking Program" with staff, consultants and Parking Advisory Committee members. This matter was continued from the December 2, 1980 Council meeting. Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, reviewed for the City Council and other persons present the progress report prepared by the consultants for the proposed Community Parking Program. He discussed such items as: 1) Program Development; 2) Project Management Meetings; 3) Economic Research Associates actions; 4) The Merriam, Deasy & Whisenant approach; 5) The Community Parking Project Advisory Committee; 6) scheduling of the project and 7) the major objectives. Bruce Fraser, representing Merriam, Deasy & Whisenant, reviewed the report prepared by the consultants and in particular reviewed the three alternative developments: Alternate A which would be a minimum project with 340 spaces; Alternate B with 440 spaces and the ultimate Alternate C with a total of 540 spaces. Daniel J. Scervanak, representing Kahn & Associates, reviewed briefly the consultants report No. 2 dated 11/24/80 listing activities to date and submitting a list of questions raised by the project advisory committee for final determination by the Council in order for the committee and the consultants to proceed. Lee Walton, Administrative Officer, stated that one of the issues yet to be resolved before the final report and evaluation could be completed, was to what extent should the city make a continuing financial contribution to the parking project. When that issue was resolved, than the remaining question should fall into place very quickly. His recommendations were if the city 1 were to make a contribution, that it should be an exchange for certain concessions that benefit the city as a whole or enhance existing city goals. For example, one of the goals of the city was to maintain and even encourage housing on the upper floors of downtown buildings. If such residential units could be exempt from assessment this would provide a financial incentive for the property owner to rehabilitate existing buildings and even in corporate housing units within the buildings. Another goal of a city contribution would be to develop maximum revenue possible from other sources. For example, the Public Services Director indicated that if existing parking meters on streets and in parking lots were converted to 20C per hour basic rate, it would bring in approximately $395,000 in excess of expenses. This in itself would represent more than half of the annual cost to advertise the debt and maintain the new parking facility. Another important inducement of a city contribution could provide would be a cap on future increases in assessment on private property so that the property owners could know that their exposure to future adjustments would be limited. Given all the above, he felt the city contribution might be as follows: A) that the base city contribution would be equal to 10% of the annual assessment against private property in the district and such contribution would be exchanged for: 1) all parking meter rates would be established at not less than .20C per hour; 2) no assessments would be levied on residential units located above the first floor in existing buildings or above the second floor in new structures; B) In addition to basic contribution, the city would agree to assume an increase an assessment within the district that exceeded the first year assessment by more than 20% during the first ten years and 40% during the first 20 years that the assessment district remains in force. He concluded that he had not worked out the exact dollar of costs of the proposal but he would estimate that under conditions he had outlined, the base city contribution would not exceed $30,000 per year and was extremely unlikely that future assessments would exceed that limit. However, even though the city's contribution would be relatively low, he fblt.it would provide a major psychological boost because the city would in effect be sharing the risk and letting the property,owner's exposures to unfor- seen circumstances. He felt that this was a proper-and logical roll for the City Council Minutes December 8, 1980 - 12:10 p.m. Page 5 city to play in this endeavor. The City Council, consultants, staff and committee members present, then held a lengthy discussion on ways on what be a fair and adequate formula for sharing of the costs to develop the parking structures: 1) parking meter rate increases; 2) assessment on private properties; 3) contributions to the program from the City's General Fund in addition to meter rates and parking fund. After discussion, the City Council took no formal action but the majority consensus was as follows: A) Parking meters to be increased to .20(, per hour; B) the City would contribute funds to the program on an annual basis, no definite figure or percentage or annual cost at this time; C) the city would contribute land for the structure; D) the City Council approved the new space standards for parking structure; E) parking requirements for downtown buildings would be included in future zoning regulations. There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting to 12:10 p.m., Monday, December 15, 1980 to further their discussion on the downtown parking program would be continued. APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON: �. 1/6/81 J Fitzpatrick, City Clerk M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS70BISPO TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1980 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Pledge Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerald Munger Absent: Mayor Lynn R. Cooper City Staff Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; George Thatcher, City Attorney; S.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Com- munity Development Director; Glen Matteson, Assistant Planner; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director A. Consider the report by the City Clerk on the bids received for the Police Parking Lot Expansion, City Plan No. E -31, engineer's estimate $112,510 without contingencies, bids were opened Monday, December 8, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. At the request of the City staff, the bid analysis was continued to December 15, 1980 in order to give more time for analyses. 1. At this time the City Council considered the resolution accenting a grant offer from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to construct Phase I of the Waste Water Treatment improvement project. D.F. Romero , Public Service