Jacksonville Landing Says Garage Not Enough

[cline]

Furthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.

Wouldn't this issue be important to clarify before pushing the legislation through?

Thanks for the post Planning Guy.  Do you have a history of the series of deals (including the Humana parking deal) that have evolved since the opening of the Landing in the late 1980s? 

Yes, that would be helpful to post.

[Planning Guy]

In bill 1987-1508, the rates for parking in the lot to the east of the Landing (then owned by the City) rates were reduced to entice/encourage people to park there.

In bill 1988-251, the City attempted to provide 525 short-term parking spaces in an existing garage bound by Laura Street, Main Street, Bay Street and Forsyth Street. This bill was withdrawn (Likely a problem with the parking garage owner, the Rouse Group and politicians).

In bill 1988-252, the City attempted to acquire property "in the vicinity of Main and Forsyth" through eminent domain. This bill was withdrawn. No explanation as to why.

In bill 1989-819, Authorized the JDDA to "USE THE "DESIGN-BUILD" APPROACH FOR CONSTRN OF A PARKING FACILITY ON PROPTYS OWNED BY THE CITY OR TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE CITY PURSUANT TO PENDING RESO 89-665; WAIVING THE PROVISIONS OF PTS 2 & 3, CHAPT 126, ORD CODE, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRN OF THE PARKING FACILITY ON A DESIGN-BUILD BASIS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A NEGOTIATED BID SELECTION PROCESS AS ESTAB BY THE DIR OF CENTRAL SVCS, DIR OF PUBLIC WKS & THE DDA'S EXECUTIVE DIR (OR THEIR DESIGNEES); REQUIRING THAT A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE LINEAR ST FRONTAGE & A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE LST (GROUND) FLR OF THE PARKING FACILITY BE CONSTRUCTED & UTILIZED FOR RETAIL/OFC PURPOSES." I am not sure where the property was located.

In bill 1994-1336, "JAX LANDING, AUTH EXECUTION OF A 3RD AMENDMENT TO THE DIPOSITION, DEV & LEASE AGREEMENT AUTH BY ORD 84-1478-798, TO ELIMINATE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING GARAGE ON NOT LESS THAN 800 SHORT TERM PUBLIC PARKING SPACES & REDIFINING THE CITY'S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE "ALTERNATIVE" SHORT TERM PUBLIC PARKING IN CONSIDERATION OF UNDERTAKING CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING SHARING IN THE COSTS OF CERTAIN "REMERCHANDISING PROGRAMS" & MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PARKING FACILIITES; APPROP & 800,000 FROM JAX LANDING PARKING GARGAGE ACCT FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT EXISTING CITY PARKING FACILITIES; AMEND ORD 94-825-562 (CIP) TO AUTH PRIORITY 1 STATUS FOR JAX LANDING PROJ; SUPERSEDING AGREEMENTS PARKING GARGAGE REQUIREMENTS & INTERIM PARKING AGREEMENT AUTH BY ORD 86-1528-870 (AS AMEND BY ORD 87-1247-683 & 89-834-447) FUNDING VIA A HUD SEC 108 LOAN WHICH WOULD NET ROUSE-JACKSONVILLE INC AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,400,000; EVIDENCING THE CITY'S INTENT TO REPAY THE HUD SEC 108 LOAN." This began to eliminate the City's Obligation.

In bill 2001-059, it approves execution by the City and the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission a Redevelopment Agreement with Humana Medical Plan, Inc. and appropriates $3,500,000 for a 1,000 space parking structure.  The proposed City investment package includes the pre-leasing of 300 daily parking spaces and 375 evening, weekend and holiday spaces for twenty-nine years and a parking validation program for Jacksonville Landing patrons for which the City will contract with  Humana for $500,000.  This parking facility is bounded by Independent Drive to the south, Hogan Street to the west and Bay Street to the north and the Humana Building to the east.  This was done to address a perceived need for parking employees of the old Humana Building and the Landing.

Finally in bill 2006-957, this was the bill that ultimately transferred the deal to the Landing, allowed the Landing to purchase the existing Landing surface lot from the City, settled the deal with Humana and established the deal in place today.

[Planning Guy]

Furthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.

Wouldn't this issue be important to clarify before pushing the legislation through?

Thanks for the post Planning Guy.  Do you have a history of the series of deals (including the Humana parking deal) that have evolved since the opening of the Landing in the late 1980s? 

Yes, that would be helpful to post.

Yes. It was an important issue. However, this wasn't being supported by the Mayor and the JEDC brought it up when given the chance.

[Tacachale]

^Wait, this is confusing. So what is the deal today? What else needs to be done?

[Planning Guy]

The deal as it stands today is:

The Landing will receive from the City approximately $3.5 million upon the construction of a parking garage in the "near vicinity" of the Landing.

and

The Landing will be provided a parking validation program of approximately $500K.

[cline]

So will the parking validation program give Sleiman dedicated parking or no?  It appears that is the issue, although his representative claims it has to do with the fact that the proposed location is not acceptable.

[thelakelander]

Where does Cameron Kuhn's failed Riverwatch tower and garage fit into all of this?  Also, do we really need another parking garage?  I wonder if there is a way to reconfigure the deal in a manner that simply better utilizes existing parking at existing facilities?

[thelakelander]

So will the parking validation program give Sleiman dedicated parking or no?  It appears that is the issue, although his representative claims it has to do with the fact that the proposed location is not acceptable.

The location talk is strange because the site is literally across the street.  It's as close as you can get a garage without putting it on top of the Landing.  Also, I hope this garage will have retail along Forsyth, Independent and Hogan Streets.

[Tacachale]

It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto

Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.

[fieldafm]

Furthermore, it was later clarified that the parking lot would not solely be used by patrons of the Landing, but rather run as a commercial parking lot.

That part was inserted later when both sides were trying to amend the deal... this is the part that ultimately killed the deal. 

upon the construction of a parking garage

that was certainly Peyton's position.. but the group that was to uphold that end of the bargain(building the parking garage) is gone

the plan last year that was agreed upon by the city council, before language was changed in which short term parking would be part of the deal-which killed it, would have essentially kept the city's end of the bargain-absent a non-existent party which modified the existing parking obligation from the late 80's.  Sleiman's, the city council and my position was that the parking obligation still existed by the city... irrespective of the parking garage... the party that was to build the parking garage is no more, the fact that they are gone doesn't dissolve the city from it's end of the bargain.

Let's say Old Man Willie owed both you and your grandpa 50k each.  Gramps dies.  Does that mean OMW doesnt owe you the 50k anymore unless grandpa rises from the dead?

although his representative claims it has to do with the fact that the proposed location is not acceptable.

let's all be adults about this... location has nothing to do with it.  A group of investors wants the Enterprise Center parking lot.. they don't want that money going to another group of investors at an adjoining space at Suntrust.

Also, do we really need another parking garage?  I wonder if there is a way to reconfigure the deal in a manner that simply better utilizes existing parking at existing facilities?

ok, say that the owners of the Suntrust building fix that surface lot(its an eyesore now)... they won't have enough space to give the Landing its spots PLUS spots that they could use... hence why a parking garage is being proposed.  You can use google maps to figure out how many spots could be arranged at that parcel as a surface lot.  It's not capable of 500 parking spaces, that's for sure.

The problem is... short term parking is being offered to the Landing in this newest scheme(which is in extremely high supply downtown, in fact the most short term parking in the entire city is downtown), that as you know is different than dedicated parking.

[tufsu1]

The deal as it stands today is:

The Landing will receive from the City approximately $3.5 million upon the construction of a parking garage in the "near vicinity" of the Landing.

and

The Landing will be provided a parking validation program of approximately $500K.

Thank you!

Everyone has been chattering about how the City hasn't met its committment...while that might have been true with previous agreements, it is not the case with the one currently in effect (signed by both parties).

[fieldafm]

It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto

Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.

no other bill existed, both sides were trying to modify the deal that got passed by council 8 months prior... the deal was about to expire, and b/c of the language change not enough council votes were cast to overide peyton's veto.

[fieldafm]

The deal as it stands today is:

The Landing will receive from the City approximately $3.5 million upon the construction of a parking garage in the "near vicinity" of the Landing.

and

The Landing will be provided a parking validation program of approximately $500K.

Thank you!

Everyone has been chattering about how the City hasn't met its committment...while that might have been true with previous agreements, it is not the case with the one currently in effect (signed by both parties).

Again

Let's say Old Man Willie owed both you and your grandpa 50k each.  Gramps dies.  Does that mean OMW doesnt owe you the 50k anymore unless grandpa rises from the dead?

[Planning Guy]

The existing deal for the Landing exists today in its current form which includes $3.5 million for the completion of a parking garage and $500K parking validation program. It is unaffected by the legislation that was passed last night.

The legislation that passed last night, will result in a 500 space garage being built on the vacant parcel bound by Bay Street, Hogan Street, Water Street and the Sun Trust Building. It is primarily to accomodate parking for the Sun Trust Building, but also to provide 200 public spaces for the businesses in the area (which includes the Landing).

It has been represented that there will be retail on the ground floor and the garage will be built to be added onto. Furthermore, the odd parcel and cul-de-sac (aka - Sister Cities Park), off of Hogan Street across Water Street from the Landing, is being considered for a hotel location.

Wouldn't it be great if all that were to come together in this economic recession?

[manasia]

It sounds increasingly like the city is willing to work to fulfill its obligations, but Sleiman is trying to milk it for more and more. I just double checked on why Peyton vetoed the previous deal in March was because Sleiman had pushed through a bill that, on top of receiving $3.5 million WITHOUT having to build a garage, he would get another $1.9 million to "subsidize short-term parking operations".

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-03-09/story/city-council-fails-override-jacksonville-landing-parking-purchase-veto

Peyton pointed out that this deal was more than the $5 million Sleiman had payed for the Landing itself.

+1 I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.