Comments on: Is DDA District a Disproportionate Burden?

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:43:17 +0000

Part of the problem is that the Council and its administrator are doing (at least for public consumption) short-term planning, where yearly holes need to be plugged. But for good management of infrastructure, long-term planning is needed. I remember sitting in DDA committee meetings 3 years ago hearing discussions of the 10-year budget picture, in which parking revenues were going be adequate to meet the needs of the system only for a few years and it looked as though the TIF funds would have to be tapped to keep the system whole. But the TIF funds are surely not meeting earlier projections now that assessments are going down and many projects did not get built as planned. I can’t imagine what the budget looks like now that the DDA has had to make major contributions to the new city hall, plus the new underground parking on 5th, plus the $2 million cash payment to the Council. Of course we know part of the answer – it will cost more to park downtown. I think that will ultimately hurt downtown merchants, ironic since the parking system was originally intended to bring customers.

By: Karen Sidney

Karen Sidney — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:03:07 +0000

I agree that the DDA has a good track record managing the parking system. The problem is that Council sees the parking system as a big pot of money that can be raided to bail them out of their own financial mess. If the city continues to demand ever bigger kickbacks from parking revenue, the only way to get it is to raise rates or stop maintaining the structures. I think the goose is at risk.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:34:30 +0000

I guess it comes down to whether you think Downtown is the dog or the tail.

But, based on their respective track records, if I had to choose between the DDA and City Council managing my money, I’d choose the DDA.

By: Vin Caruso

Vin Caruso — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:50:08 +0000

I agree with Mr. Floyd, out DDA residents will be required to pay to cover the cost of all the new downtown residents.

I wish we mere out DDA residents had similar paid lobbyists like the downtown has in the DDA.

The DDA should be disbanded. It has prove of very little use by most cities other than a money sink.

The downtown is only as strong as the community surrounding it. Lets get to work fixing the city and the downtown will rise with the rest of the community around it.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:00:44 +0000

I think we should all remember what a mess the City’s parking system was in before the DDA took it over from the City. It is now clean, safe, efficient, and easy to navigate. As a result, it reaps huge amounts of revenue that the City is already tapping into to balance its budget. Let’s not kill the goose that laid the golden egg!

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 05:46:27 +0000

I believe that the DDA has an important role to play in suggesting improvements and creating consensus around what investments are needed to keep downtown going. My contention is that it’s not good policy or budgeting for payments to be diverted blindly from the city’s general fund to the DDA outside of our regular General Fund budget process. Other city needs – police, parks, bridge repair, streets, etc. should not be given 2nd class consideration.

Undoubtedly some current DDA projects would be funded through our regular General Fund budget. It is also likely that some DDA proposals would not stand up against competing city needs.

No city can fund its basic services primarily off of homeowner property taxes. Commercial and industrial properties are needed to fund city services. The current DDA funding arrangement deprives the city of revenue for other needs – and citizens have no say in it.

As David has noted, Tax Increment Financing means that as new apartments and offices are added to downtown, with related increases in demand for city services, there is no new revenue from these new buildings to pay for increased city services, or to carry a fare share of government overhead expenses. Businesses outside the DDA, along with homeowners, pay for all the services of new downtown residents and businesses.

By: Edward Vielmetti

Edward Vielmetti — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:03:23 +0000

I’m surprised and pleased by this account of this report.

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:01:53 +0000

“the salient point that is emerging is that the city has abandoned the basic assumption that parking fees should be set so that the parking system is simply sustainable, not to generate revenue to be used for non-parking purposes.”

As a taxpayer, resident, and appreciate user of the downtown, I have much less concern about the possibility of such a change as I do about the way council seems to be going about it. I would much rather have a proactive exploration of how to most effectively use community resources than a reactive shuffling of money to fill gaps.