The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEcon Dev Adv 2009-10-28 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES October 28, 2009 City of Kitchener The Economic Development Advisory Committee met this date, chaired by Jeremy Auger; with the following members were in attendance: Len Carter, Brian Bennett, Bernie Nimer, Alan Anderson, Ian Cook, Dan Piedra, Rebecca Short, Mark Bingeman The following people sent their regrets: Howie Budd, Adrian Conrad, Mark Collins, Bob Denton The following people were absent: Brent Richardson Staff in attendance: Rod Regier, Tracey DeVille, Janette MacDonald, Valerie Bradford, Silvia Wright, John McBride, 1. Approval of Minutes On motion, the Committee approved the minutes of the September 28, 2009 Item 2.1 Conflict of Interest Colin Goodeve, Committee Administrator provided an explanation of what constitutes a conflict of interest for the committee members as outlined in Council Policy. He advised that if a member feels they have a conflict with a particular discussion they should err on the side of caution and have the Committee as a group make the decision. He advised that members should not place themselves in a position where they can benefit or influence a decision. If another member suspects that there is a conflict they can advise the committee administrator and/or chair outlining why they feel there is a conflict and the committee would then decide through a vote to determine if the individual has a conflict or not. If a member is believed to have breeched the code of conduct the Office of the City Clerk is required to report to Council and Council will then decide the action of that – removal or not of the member. Does a member with a conflict have to leave the room? - It is a decision that the Committee can make, it is not necessary but it is strongly encouraged that members with a conflict should leave the room In terms of the grey areas, sharing an interest as a citizen, potential financial gains to downtown business owners, users and developers, is the understanding that the Committee decides if there is a conflict? - If the member in question owns land or a business, there can be an obvious direct or indirect conflicts and the best route is through a committee vote to determine that, with regards to a quorum, the committee can continue to function and vote providing there are a minimum of 2 members left at the table The Committee thanked Mr. Goodeve for his time in providing a clarification of the Conflict of Interest policy. Item 2.2 Parking Strategy Mr. Bernie Nimer, Mr. Jeremy Auger and Mr. Steven Voll raised the question on whether or not they have a conflict of interest since they either work, own property and / or provide parking in the downtown. The Committee voted that they do not have a conflict. Rod Regier provided an brief reminder of the foundation of the Long Term Parking Strategy and advised the Committee that staff are looking for support / comments on the staff recommendation to Council. The Committee asked the following questions: What were the numbers used in the presentation to determine the gas price increase? - The numbers are an average over a 5 year period In terms of the supply line, why do you show a drop in demand in the future then spiking again? - we have allowed for fluctuations in availability during construction of parking structures This is just long term monthly parking strategy, what about the strategy for day use parking? - our objective is to accommodate short term customers in all our facilities and we want that to be maximized; however there will be adjustments along the way Assuming the downtown becomes as successful as we want, how well are we prepared in terms of parking? - There may be adjustments that need to be made such as the mix between short and long term parking, more traffic demand measurements and look at the need for an additional parking structure, it is important to keep in mind that the 5 year strategy is safe What are the plans for integration with Grand River Transit and the LRT? - We can say that bulk of the development of the warehouse district will take place after the LRT is installed so this is an evolution over 10 to 15 years. How is the city aligned to handle future development and the potential that some developers will steer away from the core due to lack of parking? - The Tannery and Manulife are under pressure for parking now, the next area for development could potentially be the Collins Aikman property and great potential for underground and surface parking exist there If the Region is investing so heavily in the LRT why are there such demands for spaces in the greenfield areas, what areas can accommodate what needs and how much parking is subsidized in the core compared to the greenfield spaces? - The downtown we are striving for is a fully developed, fully utilized real estate with little visual parking, if we are going to put people in parking structures we have to put something together that makes sense. Does the city not have any resource to offset the capital costs? - The net revenue from surface lots is factored in, the revenue from parking tickets stays within the enforcement division. What are the monthly parking rates for parking now? - Covered structures / parking garages are approximately $108 per month and surface lots are approximately $85 a month How many spaces are currently subsidized, for example, how many spaces are allocated to the School of Social Work? - The current agreement states the city will provide parking for their students and we have an obligation to provide up to 175 spots at the rate the school charges their students, we are currently working with WLU to amend that agreement What is the revenue for the spaces? - The net revenue is currently $2.25M per year after all expenses, that figure does not factor in what the debenture is for the Charles / Benton Street and Civic District Garages Do you factor in future infrastructure costs? - We do and part of that will be considered in the parking enterprise study that is currently underway, the Long Term Parking Strategy will assist in providing the policy model for the parking enterprise There appears to be a lack of recognition of the balance between providing too much parking and not supporting and endorsing transit friendly development, reference to the LRT having an impact on the plan, the need to remain consistent throughout the process and finding a balance in the number of parking spaces required - The LRT has not shown to have a big effect on parking as of yet, the strongest drivers of rapid transit is the price of parking, so we need to balance that The Committee asked that the full recommendations be read aloud for a greater understanding of what needs to be recommended. With perception being that parking is a problem, does the strategy include a communication strategy? - We have not included it in the strategy at this point, but it has been part of the discussions, if the committee feels that needs to be included, that is certainly encouraged. On motion by Peter Benninger Seconded by Len Carter The Committee supports the long term parking strategy recommendations with the following amendments: That rather than “plan for” another structure in the warehouse district, revise the wording to “review the need for” Develop a communication strategy around the existing parking inventory and the rationale for the increase in parking rates Item 2.3 Terms of Reference Discussion Due to time restrictions, this matter has been deferred. Item 2.4 Project Updates Rod Regier advised that there were no additions to the November project updates that we e-mailed to the Committee with the agenda. Item 2.5 Economic Reality Check Due to time restrictions, this matter has been deferred On motion The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.