Courthouse Square Internal Staff Team Minutes

Home Browse Search

them for general public parking. They also do not have any more funds to put into this area. On the issue of a private developer, they felt that interest would be very low. ~''i Randy Curtis asked what the city's response to the policy question of having to build more parking versus paying into parking district. Position was answered in letter written by city some time ago. There is no obligation to provide parking and we are exempt from paying t~ of parking district, unless we voluntarily submit to it. Course of action John would propose, would be to get good marginal costs for the extra 66 spaces. Other options were discussed in allowing for future expansion of parking by staff. The best way would be to get the RFP out in time to coordinate this issue. Another option could be to partner with a neighbor to provide more parking off-site; if it is cost effective or even do-able could be explored. Staff discussed the possibility of using the north end of the block for future transit expansion and not use as retail development. There is a perception that developers would be interested in working in conjunction with government, but not becoming a partner with government. The mixed use developer could add a lot to this project. Discussions also included possibility of light rail system in Salem azea and how it would connect to the e~sting transit system. Light rail per se may not be a vision of Salem's future, but possibility of a trackless trolley from West Salem to downtown could be a possibility. ~ The north end of the block was also discussed as a possible site for downtown urba.n housing. Another item brought up dwing city meeting on parking was the status of an analysis being done by county on the need for wban housing policy. Jo Stonecipher gave a briefmg of this issue. It came about because of the Riverplace development issue about two years ago. The real issue should have been putting into place a policy of granting t~ exemptions to core housing that met certain criteria, than whether or not Riverplace was a good project. County analysts are still working this issue to provide information to the commissioners before policy can be set. It will be to Courthouse Square's benefit to have this policy being worked through the process, but it should not be tied to Courthouse Square. ff changes are made and the project is not a joint venture, it could affect the FTA grants. They are tied to joint development and may need to be reworked. Also when asked about city's view of state transportation rules, the attitude has been they don't agee with all those rules; do what they want to do and will worry about it later. Meeting was adjourned. ~ Page 4 of 4