Laserfiche WebLink
aze lack of free pazking, and the fact that it was a freestanding structure without a surrounding <br /> retail environment. Some possible options when theaters shut down are: the structure is can be <br /> teazed down, reused, or the theater stays and it becomes a discount theater. <br /> Kelly then answered the following question: how to address mechanisms to assure and <br /> � guarantee percentage mix of retail usage (small, medium anchor, nighttime and daytime <br /> tenants)? Kelly stated that the contractual agreement between the developer and the City does <br /> require that such mix be present and preserved. However, Kelly reiterated that a City could not <br /> fully control the types of tenants in any project because if there are too many controls the <br /> project is not finnancable. A reasonable balance is the best solution. <br /> The final question addressed by Kelly was if there are any downsides to the project? Kelly's <br /> clarification covered the fact that this is a land use issue. The. City might choose to utilize this <br /> land for the retail cinema project versus other uses such as housing. Therefore, it is more of a <br /> policy issue than an issue of finding negative points in the project. However some of the <br /> concerns might be: if a tenant doesn't work out this might cause ttie property to be vacated, also <br /> pazking might be a concern. <br /> The next consultant to address questions was Roberta Mundie, President of Mundie and <br /> Associates. This firm performed the economic and fiscal analysis for the project. Mundie, <br /> stated that she had been asked to specifically address three questions. However, prior to <br /> answering the questions Mundie made wished to make very clear that her firm, is neither a <br /> proponent nor an opponent of the project. The stock and trade of Mundie and Associates is <br /> objectivity, and their work is only valuable to the degree that Mundie accomplishes that <br /> objectivity in the analysis and reporting the firm produces. Mundie further stated that her firm <br /> has been in business for twenty years (next month), and that represents several hundreds of <br /> reports. <br /> � The main questions Mundie was to address were: <br /> • Opportunity costs of the project; <br /> • Complimentary comments to Kelly's, what if the project is developed and the cinema fails? <br /> � How much does the economic success of the cinema depend on parking? <br /> In response to the first question, Mundie explained that in this case (developing a project such <br /> as the retail-cinema) the opportunity cost is the outcome of any other course of action that this <br /> Council might have taken, which the council is foregoing by opting for the retail cinema. In the <br /> case of the retail cinema project there aze two kinds of opportunity costs: the land (what could <br /> one have gotten for the land if it was to be used differently), the other is the proposed project's <br /> contribution to downtown revitalization (meaning what other downtown projects could be <br /> embraced in lieu of this project which would also promote downtown revitalization). <br /> REGULAR COUNCIL MEETiNG DECEMBER 4, 2000 <br /> MINUTES PAGE 9 <br /> . . �. _ _._ _,..__.__ ._.,..... ,_ <br />