Memo - Parking Lot 500/600 Improvement Project
I Public Works Department I
Memorandum
To:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From:
Steven C. Mielke, City Manager ~
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Copy:
Date:
January 4, 2001
Parking Lot 500/600 and 10th & 1,1 th Avenue Improvement Project
Subject:
Puroose: The purpose of this worksession item is to present information and discuss
areas of concern regarding the scope, costs and assessments of this proposed 2001
improvement project. The goal is to determine a course of action that City Council will
support.
Backaround: At the December 19, 2000 City Council meeting, Council was presented a
feasibility report on the subject improvement project and adopted a resolution setting a
public hearing date of January 16, 2<:)01;.; Several business and property owners
expressed concern regarding the costs and associated assessment amounts as shown
in the feasibility report. Specifically, there was concern that it would be hard to
maintain the current mix of small local retail businesses given the proposed costs.
There is general agreement that improvements in this important central business area
are needed to improve both safety and aesthetics.
Proiect schedule: At the January 16 meeting, following the public hearing, City Council
will consider ordering the improvements, i.e., preparation of construction plans. If
ordered, the schedule is as follows:
Approve plans and order bids... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. Feb 13, 2001
Bid opening and order assessment hearing.................. ... ..March 20 or April 3, 2001
Assessment Hearing... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...'... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..May 1, 2001
Award bid...... ...... ............... ...... ..I.~,............ .................. .June 5,2001
Construction. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... .... . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... . June - October, 2001
ProDosed assessment methods:
Th project includes both street and parking lot assessments to 24 properties
encompassing 38 businesses. The city has existing policy on street assessments but
there is no policy on a method of assessing downtown parking lot improvements.
Proposed parking lot assessment:
The proposed parking lot assessment formula considers building area, zoning
classification and the associated parking requirement, parking credit for private parking
stalls, and a proximity (or access) factor. The access factor is determined as follows:
ACCESS FACTOR = 100 if distance (pedestrian travel) from nearest business
entrance to nearest interior parking stall is 0 - 100 feet
= 90 if 100 -149 feet
= 80 if 150 -199 feet
= 70 if 200 - 245 feet
= 60 if 250 - 299 feet
= 50 if 300 - 349 feet
I
= 40 if 350 - 399 feet
Five (5) points are deducted if a street must be crossed.
PARKING REQUIRED is based on building classification and size as follows:
OFFICE: 1 space for every 250 sq feet of building
RETAIL: 1 space for every 200 sq feet
RESTAURANT: 1 space for every 35 sq feet
The NET PARKING REQUIRED is determined by reducing the required parking
number by the number of private parking stalls
A POINT TOTAL is computed for eaCh property by multiplying the access factor and
the net parking required.
i'
Each property assessment amount is then' determined by dividing the sum of all
property point totals into each property point total and multiplying this fraction with the
total assessed parking lot cost.
Example: Parcel #6: 913 Mainstreet, Bethesda Thrift Shop (see attached preliminary
assessment table)
Parcel #6 point total = [21 (net parking reqd) x 100 (access factor)] = 2,100
Sum of all property point totals = 91,590
Total parking lot assessed cost = $134,934.97
i:
Parcel #6 ass ssm nt = (2,100/91,590) x $134,934.97 = J3.093.83
The feasibility report proposed a 70/30 split on parking lot costs similar to street
assessment policy, i.e., property owner pays 70%, city pays 30%.
Proposed street assessment:
The proposed street assessment formula is unique and utilizes the language in
paragraph 11.05 of Legislative Policy 8-8, Roadway Improvements. Paragraph 11.05
states: In certain unusual cases assessments mav be determined by a "fair"
comoarison to other assessed orooerties. This will be determined by the Enaineerina
Division of Public Works and can be aooealed to the City Council. The proposed ~
formula is based on each property's percentage of total building square footage
adjusted upward if the building has s~reet frontage. The adjusted building square
footage is = actual building area (sf) + [building street frontage/total street frontag ] x
total building area (sf). The assessed amount is determined by multiplying the fraction
of adjusted building sf to total adjusted building sf by the total street assessment
amount.
Example: Parcel #7, Fred's Shoe Repair ('see attached preliminary assessment table)
Parcel #7 street frontage = 32.5 ft
Total project area street frontage = 1 ,650 ft
Parcel #7 building area = 1,039 sf
Total building area = 236,260 sf
Parcel #7 adjusted building area = 1,:039 sf + [32.5/1,650] x 236,260 = 5,693 sf
! .
Total adjusted building area = 472,5.20 sf .
Total street assessment amount = $65,441.94
Parcel #7 street assessment = [5,693/472,520] x $65,441.94 = ~788.40
Staff believes that both of these assessment formulas are fair and reasonable methods
of determining relative project benefit and assessments.
Prooosed assessments
Staff believes that the proposed scope of improvements and associated assessments
as reported in the feasibility report are reasonable. The proposed assessed amount is
just over 42% of the total project cost. However, City Council may want to consider
further reductions in assessed amounts.. If so, several different options are shown on
the attached table. The options show project costs, including total assessable costs,
associated with: ill
: tf
: I
,
- Costs as shown in feasibility study (Option H)
- SO/50 parking lot cost sharing~ with and without landscaping costs assessed
(Option I and J)
_ Street improvements reduced ;to mill/overlay with either SO/50 or 70/30 parking
lot cost sharing (Option K and;!L)
Staff recommendation: Stay with th~!:: project scope and assessments as described in
the feasibility report. I
1 "
. ::!: -
~~8
i~-~
'ii -
::J
~ .
~o
.....z
0::'2
'e-
0..
o
o
<.0
~
o
o
It)
en
t-
O
....J
en
z
52
a..
o
:I:
0::
o
LL
en
Z
o
en
-
0::
~
~
o
()
I-
en
o
U
W-ILL(iJ
(!)<(/)(/) C") 0 "lilt CD ~
~::);::(/) .... .... ~ 0 ~
WZ(/)W g g ci ci ci
>ZO(/) tit - tit
<<O~
W ~ CO 8 CD C")
-I
all- Q) 1.1) Q) C")
cO cO .. oi ci
~(/) ..... CD ..... CD CD
(/)0 C") "lilt ..... 1.1) "lilt
0 ~ ..; 0 cO
wo 0 ~ C'I CO
(/) ~ ~ ~ .... ....
(/) - - -
<
C") C") CD C") C")
1.1) 1.1) C'I ~ ~
-'I- cO :8 ~ ~ ~
~(/) 1.1) ..... .....
e 0 C") C")
00 N N ~ an an
1-0 ..... ..... CO e 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W(!) C'I ..... C'I
O::z ..... .....
<- ..... ~ CD ~ .....
J:~(/) cO r--: ari r--: cO
(/)0::1- 0 C'I 0
~ "lilt ~ "lilt ~
(/)<0 1.1) 1.1)
..; 0 ..; 0 i
~~-I a "lilt C'I "lilt
.... ~ ~
00 tit - tit
I- "lilt ~ "lilt ~
0 "lilt
-1-1 to-: to-: to-:
~(!)ln ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I/) I/) co I/) 1.1)
o~o "lilt "lilt ..... "lilt "lilt
a) a) cO a) a)
I-~O C'I C'I ~ C'I C'I
0:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<(
a..
Q) Q) "lilt Q) Q)
-II-I- ..... ..... I/) ..... .....
~ .. ~ oi oi
i5ltl(/) e ~ ~
co co Q) Q) Q)
00::0 N N cO an an
t-t)o ~ "lilt "lilt ..... .....
~ ~ ~ ~
tit tit
ND/J.dO J: - ..., ~ -I
i t
() g
~ II) -e ~~
'0 ~ iJ ~ o U Q
~ - CltJ I: - CltJ I.::
"C ~ a a~l a~l
::::s .5 :8J~ .5 J ()
CiS ~ ~lJ ~ ~
as II) !.I as ~ c: as ~ c:
Z ~ 0.& 0. .!!! 0. .!!!
~t~ ~ t ~
0 ~ c: ~ CD ~ ~,
:c ~ '" ~ I ~ In
i= 'm _'5 := t:b := ~ ~ - ~ ~
n. as '0. = = as 8.
a= Q) o.~ 0."= 0."=
LL (/)~ (/) '" (/)!i en!i
0 E g .s e ~ 0002 0002
en I/)'tj ~CltJCl ~CllJQ
W e -'5 (3 i
g~ O~QJ O!QJ
C LL 1/).... 1.1) 0 ..... 0
aU
(!)
...=~
00
~O
OLL
o::w
n.o::
w<
0::::>
-0
I-en
ffic
wZ
J:<
I-W
o::(!)
~~
0::)
I-Y>
Oel
OZ
LLO
W-I
0::-
<::)
::>m
O~
enJ:
o::t-
Wz
n.0
tic
OW
O~
wm
~b
wO
>LL
<W
zO::
<~
eno
I-(/)
Zo::
Ww
ffia..
0::1-
n.(/)
WO
0::0
Cw
W::)
(/)0
(/)-
wZ
(/)::)
en<
<w
~~
t:::x:
en-l
0-,
0-
-13:
~~
Zw
Za..
<(0
Wo::
(!)n.
~:x:
wo
~~
II)
z
o
t/)
~
~
::!:
o
o
l-
t/)
o
o
'ti::E-
~~~
fi;=
2.
~o
....z
~2
e-
Q..
o
..JLLw
<CIJCIJ
::>~CIJ
ZCIJW
ZOCIJ
<O~
o
o
<0
oc!S
o
o
It)
en
I-
o
...J
en
z
52
a..
o
J:
0::
o
u.
Z
o
i=
u
::>
o
w
0::
I-
en
o
u
u.
o
~
<(
~
~
:::>
CJ)
W
..JLL
mCIJ
~~
CIJ~
wCIJ
ClJo
ClJo
<
W
..J
mt-
<CIJ
ClJo
ffio
CIJ
CIJ
<
..Jt-
~CIJ
00
t-O
t-
o
..J..J
<(!)....
t-zCIJ
0-0
t-~o
tt:
~
..Jt-t-
~ltlCIJ
ott:o
t-t-o
(J)
z
o
i=
0.
tt:
o
(J)
W
o
w
~
c
o
N
g
......
~
--
.,.
co
......
ci
(t)
N
...:
o
II)
.,.
~
I':
--
o
~
--
~
~
......
--
ci
.,.
......
--
--
.,.
II)
~
--
co
o
an
II)
(t)
.,.
II)
co
N
~
--
~
(t)
.,.
co
......
ci
(t)
N
...:
o
II)
.,.
~
I':
--
o
~
--
~
L1
~
o
0)
N
co
an
co
N
.,.
~
o
0)
N
co
ana
~ 5
.,.~
.
1:
i
41)
(!) I
z &
i=ot:
W'b
W ~
::E ~
o e
::ia
m 41)
~!
i
a
~
'()
u e
~i
cOt
.
..J
<
Z
(!)
tt:
o
>
o
Z
I
0)
N
co
--
g
......
C!
--
..
N
o
,..;
(t)
N
...:
......
L1
co
N
I
~
co
~
~
I':
--
co
......
cO
--
L1
~
.",;.
o
(J)
cO
~
~
z
o a
(ij~
Gjt
tt: a
()
e
15
i
16
i
u .s
~ ~
fh ·
"5
.
(t)
--
g
~
i
::E
::;)
en
ti
o
o
C)
z
<3
::;)
o
w
~
II)
co
g
--
(J)
cO
......
(t)
c;j
o
L1
(t)
II)
cO
II)
o
N"
......
~
~
I':
--
II)
~
0)
N
L1
0)
......
.",;.
o
co
N"
~
~
~
::>
tn
~
::i
in
(i)~~
<C:t~
LU :I ~
LL ~
~ & fi
zlii
-'-....
LL .e fI)
~l
ul'b
CD :t .~
00....
I c:: Q
:: t ~
. .