Laserfiche WebLink
JI 11- 18 1994 BOOK 57 Fm 61 <br />The three alternatives they came up with are: <br />(1) purchase of additional land; <br />(2) use of existing parking facilities which are not used on <br />a daily basis, such as church parking lots, and having <br />some kind of rental agreement; and <br />(3) having the County work with the City in doing an overall <br />in-depth analysis of parking in the downtown area and <br />contributing monetarily to provision of additional <br />parking. <br />Director Keating reported that they did identify <br />properties that could be condemned and purchased and used <br />for parking. Two of the areas considered could provide 85 <br />spaces each, and the third 34 spaces. The cost for all <br />three is a little over 3/4 of a million dollars without <br />including the cost of paving, etc. <br />The second alternative, leasing existing parking lots, <br />would provide a total of about 95 spaces. These are grassed <br />parking lots, and this would involve leasing spaces and then <br />constructing parking lots. <br />Staff felt the first alternative is very costly just to <br />provide parking and also it really wouldn't lend itself to a <br />good overall plan for the downtown area. Another disadvan- <br />tage is that there is no guarantee these lots would be used <br />exclusively by courthouse patrons, and also it would not be <br />guaranteed that you could have parking all the time. <br />Staff, therefore, recommends that the Board direct staff to <br />coordinate with the City in a study so that parking can be <br />worked into an overall plan for development of the downtown <br />area and agree in principal to contribute at some future <br />time to the provision of additional parking. <br />Commissioner Bird felt staff provided an excellent <br />report and that the recommendation makes sense. He did not <br />feel we have any choice but to coordinate with the City. <br />48 <br />