^ Reviewing the
"Special Meeting" Minutes from a December 15, 2020 session, it really seems like the City of Houghton is eager to consider whatever solution it can get to unburden itself of the ongoing costs of maintaining the aging parking deck, as well as the alternative option of demolishing & replacing it. Annual maintenance / repairs for this big deck are estimated at $250K / year. The city already puts ~17% of annual collected property taxes toward parking (most of it this deck) - and that doesn't even cover all of the costs - that's a lot for a city this small to spend on parking. It sounds like council is reluctant to raise property taxes or borrow money for the deck. From the
earlier article,
Quote:
|
The city parking fund is not self-supporting. Waara said that one-sixth of the property tax millage collected by the city each year goes to maintain parking, with most of that used for the big deck. Parking already costs the owner of a $100,000 home in the city $127 per year.
|
It doesn't sound like a "non-parking deck" option is even being considered at all (not that anyone was suggesting that on here, just saying). But to Rizzo's point, there is some discussion of decreasing parking capacity at this location and moving some of it away from the waterfront. And the developer actually makes the argument that their proposal opens up existing businesses to more daylight / views than what is existing. I mean, yeah, you'd have more daylight on the lower floors without a parking deck covering your windows, but you're still not getting real views of the waterfront with the replacement development plan.
The cost to remove & replace the aging deck is estimated at $12 million. If Veridea or another developer assumes some ownership, it relieves the city of the burden. Not to say parking is the only motivator here, but it seems to be central to everything else being discussed.
Reading the public comments in those same minutes (~112 community members attended this meeting!) it sounds like the biggest complaint is that the city has not allowed adequate time / adequate formats to gather public input. Definitely some NIMBYism in there too, but a lot of folks say they just want council to "slow down and back up".
To SIGSEGV's questions -I can't find a public pro forma / financial statement for the development, but I haven't read anything that indicates that Michigan Tech has any involvement in the way of funding. Just a letter from their president indicating that the University supports the development. On the heated parking topic, I also can't find anything to confirm that. If you look at
Veridea's response to the RFQ in 2019, they cite other projects with heated parking. However, the city's
final RFQ document does not explicitly request / require it. My guess is that this might be something the developer wants to include voluntarily, at least for those parking spaces that would be utilized by residents.
I agree that it would be nicer if Lakeshore drive were opened up more to the waterfront. By the way, isn't it interesting that there is a
"private residence" that bisects the current parking deck? This residence / property is excluded from the official redevelopment zone, and anything done to affect it would require separate agreements with the current owner. The current renderings make it look like this building remains as-is, though I'm not sure how occupied it really is.