Here is the crux of the issue: the DDA’s autonomy with regard to its TIF funds (which Council has no formal authority over) vs. the Council’s authority over parking rates. Neither body is willing to give up its own measure of autonomy and authority. Yet, because Council is depending on parking revenue to balance its budget, the DDA is being squeezed to manage that revenue and thus is demanding more authority on rates.

From the Council’s viewpoint, they are taking a risk in providing a “back-up” plan to maintain a minimal fund balance. The DDA could simply spend money on new projects and demand money from the city.
But the DDA has made concessions by self-limiting in its spending via the revised 10-year plan, which did indeed cut down on discretionary spending from TIF. That 10-year plan also commits the DDA to make the bond payments for the 5th Ave underground parking structure through FY2014/2015 from its TIF funds. (Note that the agreement is only through FY 2015-2016.) So in order to pay the city with parking revenues, the DDA is in essence shifting some of its TIF revenue to pay parking expenses. If the city took back the parking utility, that TIF revenue might no longer be available to pay the bonds, for which the city is obligated.

Let’s also recall that it is not possible to bind future councils. Though the agreement is meant to be long-term, a future council could abrogate it if the DDA’s behavior with regard to parking rate management becomes egregious (which I doubt). So while each party is giving up something, it is for a relatively short period of time (at least the backup financing part) and is correctable in the future.

I am not generally in favor of transferring power from elected to non-elected bodies, but I think this may be the best of a very difficult situation. Certainly it is better than letting the Administrator’s budget take place, with its layoffs in public safety.