The Seattle zoo's parking garage cost to city might double, rekindling a controversy
A new city analysis backs up citizen complaints that fiscal projections were faulty. If the Zoo Society had proceeded with an earlier plan, it might already have a garage in place at a similar cost to the much-delayed, bitterly fought one now proposed.
Editor's note: As a Phinney Ridge resident, the writer has been active in the fight against the proposed parking garage at Woodland Park Zoo. He's also an active supporter of the zoo and paid-up member in full. Readers are encouraged to factor that in and comment below.
For more than a year, neighborhood activists near the Woodland Park Zoo have been hounding Seattle officials with evidence of fiscal miscalculations for the Zoo Society's controversial planned $31 million, 700-car parking garage.
It appears they were right.
In a report today to the City Council, city analysts warn that revised attendance projections and diminished expectations on garage usage will drive up the garage's cost to taxpayers. Under what the report considers a worst-case scenario, the pricetag would be $16.5 million, more than double the original estimate of $8.18 million.
"Significant uncertainties remain regarding key drivers, including overall zoo attendance, the share of visitors who will use the garage, and the potential establishment of a restricted parking zone," states the report, prepared by the City Council's central staff.
Could the report be enough to reopen the garage issue with the council? Richard McIver, chair of the Finance & Budget Committee and a stalwart garage supporter, has said repeatedly that the issue should be revisited only if "there is some overwhelmingly compelling new evidence, which, had it been available earlier, would have likely led to a different decision." Other council members have expressed concerns over financing, as well as other issues, during the three-year controversy. But council skeptics have never had enough votes to delay funding or reopen the issue.
Still, fireworks are far from over. The updated financial scenario comes just days before a public hearing at City Hall on budget approval of the garage. The hearing, slated for 5:30 p.m. Tuesday before the parks committee, was announced last month after city officials were informed that a similar hearing in 2004 may have lacked adequate public notification.
At the earlier hearing, officials disclosed that the proposed project was being moved from a south-entrance, underground configuration to a west-side, four-story, above-ground structure – a move activists later dubbed "the switcheroo."
Zoo and parks officials cited cost as the reason for the change. Although official cost estimates were never made public, today's report cites a figure of $28.3 million for the south end garage.
So the irony is that if the Zoo Society had proceeded with the earlier plan, which had begrudging neighborhood approval, it might already have a garage in place at an eventual cost (to the city) approaching that of the much-delayed, bitterly fought west-side garage.
Garage opponents say they don't want the south-end project revived.
"We need to focus on existing parking resources that are more than enough to accommodate the zoo's parking needs," said Irene Wall, president of the Phinney Ridge Community Council. Among the options: Use of additional surface parking in Woodland Park, additional available parking on city streets, and shuttles from Northgate (which has a new parking garage), the Interstate 5 park-and-ride lot at Northeast 65th Street, and school parking lots, which are not used during the zoo's peak summer season.
Public subsidy of a "mammoth mall-sized parking garage" conflicts with the city's comprehensive plan "and our goals as a sustainable city," Wall added.
Zoo officials say the report actually shows a lower city cost for the garage by figuring in the city's new parking tax, which will total $4.1 million over the 20-year financing period. But Wall said the tax is aimed at street, bridge, and other transportation maintenance, not parking garages, and that a multimillion-dollar net loss would still occur.
The steel garage, nearly a football-field square, would occupy a footprint comparable to the north meadow, home of the popular Zoo Tunes concert series. Critics say it will fill only on busy summer weekends because a consistent 40 percent of zoo goers do not pay for parking, preferring neighboring streets instead.
The city and zoo initially discussed encouraging a restricted parking zone in residential neighborhoods to the west and north to force zoo-goers to use the garage. But under city guidelines, an RPZ must be petitioned for by neighbors, many of whom oppose the idea. Neighbors would have to pay an annual fee for RPZ parking stickers and say it would be impossible to have summertime barbecues and host parties for friends and relatives.
"If an RPZ is not ultimately formed, or the RPZ does not impose tight restrictions all year round, the garage revenues may be lower than estimated here and the city's financial obligations may be higher," the report notes.
In a two-week period in 2005, more than 1,400 citizens, most of them neighbors, signed a petition opposing the garage.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Apr 4, 5:15 p.m. inappropriate
Public Screwing 101: Here's how public projects work in Seattle: First, there is the idea and the low ball estimate. For some reason, the government accepts the estimate and approves the project. Then there is a delay while the Big Boys decide who gets to screw the public this time around. Once this vital question is resolved, work starts and the true estimate is revealed, and then inflated and inflated again, all while portions of the project get cut. And the same thing happens the next time around.
Admittedly, WA-DOT does seem to be an exception to this rule.
Posted Wed, Apr 4, 5:24 p.m. inappropriate
Conflicts shmonflicts?: So is this the editorial standard we can expect from Crosscut -- that people involved as activists in political causes can write about them in ostensibly journalistic fashion?
Posted Wed, Apr 4, 7:02 p.m. inappropriate
That's why we run disclaimers: Hey Don, as a lifelong journalist I know one doesn't have to be an "activist" to be labeled unprofessional. But with all due respect I'd be interested in specifics. I tried to maintain journalistic integrity in the piece and if I didn't, I'd appreciate knowing where. Thanks...
Posted Wed, Apr 4, 8:30 p.m. inappropriate
If we find this sort of perspective isn't valuable, doesn't inform an issue, or is something most of our readers have a problem with, we'll make a change. But there isn't much point in a new Web newspaper replicating the standards and approach of the established dailies. Those are worthy standards and it is a worthy approach, but they aren't the only standards or the only approach.
It's time to try new things. It's time to mash up the news, because people aren't gettting their information from a single, self-contained, "full-service" source anymore.
In the case of this particular mashup, of having someone close to a topic report on it, Paul has forgotten more than most reporters will ever know about the zoo garage project. He's pretty passionate about it, but he's also a journalism pro from way back and is up front about his bias. As long as what he writes is factually based and you know where he's coming from, I think his is a valuable perspective.
I encourage everyone to chime in here. I'd really like to hear what people think about this. I think the guy who writes Ask an Uptight Seattleite would call this a teaching moment.
Posted Fri, Apr 6, 1:18 p.m. inappropriate
building our future: i am an ex-seattle design commissioner and of all the projects that we reviewed in my years on the commission this one caused me the most heartache. the city of seattle (government and citizens) talk a great line about being green, caring about the environment, wanting to stop global warming and on and on. my feeling is that it is a bunch of crap. we are one of the most car-dependent cities in the world and do little or nothing to change it and in fact constantly add elements that make us even more dependent on the car. this garage is a tragedy in the making. the masterplan originally called for an underground garage in the south lot at even greater expense. it at least made some urban design sense but still begged the question: why is the city spending millions of dollars on creating parking at the zoo? shouldn't the zoo's educational mission include encouraging people to get their fat butts out of their cars and find a way to get to the zoo that does not destroy the planet?
this new garage proposal not only celebrates the damn automobile above all else but also forces most visitors to use the west entrance and re-orients the entire zoo. currently the west entrance is the one entry that caters to mass-transit users, but they will now have to find their way past this edifice to get to the zoo. i don't want to speak ill of the architectural design itself. i think dave hewitt has actually done and admirable job in trying to make it a "good" building, unfortunately it does not take away the fact that it should never be built.
my suggestion is that the city should take the money it is going to spend on the garage and instead build a starter streetcar line from greenwood along phinney and possibly extending to wallingford. even if people "have to" drive to the zoo they can then park at one of the numerous existing parking spaces along the line and ride in. i know this would cost more than the current garage proposal, but it would actually benfit the neighborhoods and city as a whole. i guarantee that kids would rather ride a streetcar than park in a garage at the zoo.
if the garage is built it will represent an assault on a city park that is supposed to be dedicated to celebrating and preserving the environment and more millions of dollars wasted in worship of the automobile that is killing our habitat.
nic rossouw
Posted Fri, Apr 6, 1:36 p.m. inappropriate
Wrong on both sides: There's so much wrong on both sides of the garage issue.
Zoo Society: bunker mentality, and mysterious decisionmaking process inherited from joint operation with the Parks Department. Zoo president was too slow in reaching out to community when she first came to town.
The Neighbors: had no problem when the garage was partially underground on the south side. Apparent failure to understand the economics facing a modern zoo. However, I do take my hat off to them for their tolerance of zoo traffic and sidestreet parking.
The neighbors have no real answer for how the zoo is supposed to fulfill its conservation mission under the status quo. Attendance drives zoo revenue, and costs are ever-increasing. Conversely, new exhibits are proven to be the driver of attendance. How is the zoo supposed to keep pace if attendance and therefore revenue are effectively capped by a limit on parking? If capped attendance makes new attendance-drawing exhibits uneconomical?
I loathe the free-and-easy use of the term World Class, but the zoo is World Class. Not in terms of image but due to its international involvement in important wildlife conservation programs. Again, the Attendance-Revenue Circle helps pay for that.
The person who comes up with a way Phinney can coexist with a busier zoo is going to be a hero.
Posted Fri, Apr 6, 1:44 p.m. inappropriate
RE: building our future: I have to disagree with the streetcar part, as a bicycle commuter who takes Phinney/Greenwood almost daily. Existing traffic and looming new congestion points, resulting from the spate of new townhouse clusters, mean the route is already hazardous enough without the embedding of rails in the pavement and addition of rail vehicles with big stopping distances.
Now, if you wanted to put the line down the middle of Aurora, like the old Rhody Line proposal, that would be cool. Or an elevated automated peoplemover system, also down Aurora.
Posted Fri, Apr 6, 2:59 p.m. inappropriate
Irene: It's hardly world class to curse Woodland Park with a giant steel garage structure. But that aside, your point about the zoo being a business which needs to grab more and more revenue to model conservation is zany. Modern zoo economics means that zoos are no longer places to contemplate our relationship to nature and wildlife; they are cash machines to fund escalating salaries of executive directors (D. Jensen $250 K total compensation per 2005 fed tax form 990) and the cost of staffing up to run private catered events. The Zoo is only channeling a fraction of their income to in-situ conservation. When pushing to take over the zoo under the management agreement, the Society promised a flood of private dollars to pay for large capital expenses. Some of that came true but the zoo squandered $10M on Zoomazium - a nifty building but it has nothing to do with curing the nature deficit disorder as claimed. That's about playing outdoors in a park, not inside on a fake fig tree.
Building a giant garage only enables the zoo to promote heavier attendance at the already most crowded season. The result is a diminished zoo experience for all. Seven years ago the city purchased 125 acres in Enumclaw for the Zoo's use. Intread of spending $30 M on a parking garage, why not start a satellite zoo so SE King County residents don't have to drive to north Seattle for a zoo experience?
PS A big thanks to Nic for voting his conscience on the Design Commission. In the end one other commissioner voted no as well. He rejected the garage because the zoo and the designers had fallen in love with their creation; instead of trying to conceal it, they chose to "celebrate" it instead. That makes a mall sized garage the largest exhibit at the zoo. Some conservation lesson, huh?
Posted Mon, Apr 9, 2:46 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Irene: Irene, you and I are more in agreement about the zoo management than you might think. For example, I loathe the carousel. Totally NOT what a modern zoo is supposed to be about. And I never believed the Zoo Society could deliver on their private fundraising goals. Jensen's compensation is shocking. However, I must take exception to your characterization of my description of zoo economics as "zany." Studies show that visitor levels stay stagnant without new exhibits, and new exhibits cost what they cost.
Cutting zoo leadership salaries would not pay for new multi-million exhibits at regular intervals (those exhibits act as the Seattle end of information "pipelines" that stretch to scientists doing conservation work in the field). It is more of a slam on the people in leadership positions, no matter how richly they might be deserving of such slams, rather than on the issue of how to accommodate an increased number of zoo visitors in the most direct way possible.
If the zoo were a machine, which option would likely be most reliable by involving the fewest 'moving parts'? -- altering the zoo's economic model which would likely require revamping the Byzantine agency culture and possibly impact animal care? Building a duplicate zoo in the burbs, requiring duplication of critical animal care staff and facilities? Or building one garage?
Yes, it's an overpriced garage, and the revenue projections should be questioned. But I still can't believe that a zoo and a neighborhood that accept the Norse Home and a big honkin' water tower can't find a way to negotiate an aesthetically and financially responsible garage.
Seriously, at this point Garage financing is starting to smell like Green Line financing, both sides ought to go back to the drawing board. And since the atmosphere surrounding the issue is so toxic, the zoo should turn over the planning to a city or county agency with experience in those types of public works projects. The zoo's forte is exhibitry.
Posted Mon, Apr 9, 9:43 p.m. inappropriate
Yes, change the Byzantine culture: Oh Wiseline - or shall we call you The Dissumlator? Glad to read that we agree on the carousel and the awful concrete blob housing it and disfiguring the North Meadow as a result. Past and recent conversation with zoo staff gives me hope that the zoo can be saved, but it must be taken away from the bankers, lawyers, developers, marketers and public relations spinners first.
I sense your love of animals from the photography on your blog but zoos are not saving them in the wild. Just today I received a most insightful message from the former wpz director who is completely opposed to this garage and the next wave of "development" the Zoo Society has planned. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support the claims that seeing animals in a zoo makes the typical human visitor more likely to care, change their behaviour, (like taking the bus to the zoo instead of expecting a subsidized parking space) or support real conservation activities. The zoo economy should model sustainabilty, not the boom and bust cycle of temporary surges in admissions to see the baby whatever, then the drop off until enough bucks are scraped up for the next blockbuster so the cycle can be repeated. The zoo should find its statis which for WPZ is around 1.1 million per year, counting all the school kids, officer summer picnicers, and zoo tunes concert goers.
The zoo can still accommodate a significant amount of growth without a parking garage by shifting a percentage of their peak season demand to the shoulder season when there's plenty of on-site parking without a garage. Dr. Jensen tells us her marketing staff has plenty of clever ways of getting people to use this garage (details to follow) - why not put that talent to some good use instead? A 700-stall garage will be a financial drain on the zoo and taxpayers. And its a lot longer and deeper than the Norse Home too. You can still love Woodland Park, the Zoo, and hate the garage. As for negotiating a better solution in this "toxic" atmosphere, we have begged the City Council to do that as they did with the Northgate debacle. Taking this garage off the table is the first step to a finding a rational approach.
Posted Tue, Apr 10, 3:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Yes, change the Byzantine culture: Dissumlator? Not sure what that means.
You know, if the neighbors can drive an alternate plan that can show adequate general revenues for the zoo absent constantly rising attendance, I would be all for looking at that as a possible Third Way. In addition to being realistic and feasible, it should not put current funding levels, and therefore animal care, at risk. Within that funding level I am open to any ideas for restructuring, including losing the marketers and spinners.
The current zoo long range plan proposes additional biozones, such as a temperate Asia area south of Northern Trail. As I recall this is the logical complement to the other zones along the Aurora side, and affordable as long as there aren't any Giant Pandas. What is the neighborhood's position on additional exhibits that are comparable in character as the zoo's modern exhibits of the past 25-30 years? That is, for the long-term conservation-education mission, not the attendance-driving, short-term objective.
Posted Thu, Apr 12, 4:48 p.m. inappropriate
Animals Yes, Garage, No: Dissimulator was reference to anonymous, clever satirist who posted a broadsheet on poles near the zoo calling attention to the Zoo Society's "modest proposal" to do what it can to be global, particularly enhancing global warming. A few remnants might still be legible.
Regarding attitudes toward the Long Range Physical Development Plan, as a former zoo board member, I argued against inclusion of several features starting with the carousel, the 42,000 SF office building, the 8,500 SF "Event" center, aka commerical banquet facility, and the curious Conservation Gallery, another 8-9,000 SF building with a very vague program function, proposed to front along Phinney Avenue where the current West gate is. Raising the multiple millions to construct all these huge buildings, then maintain them, will only take money AWAY from animal habitat improvements. Private donors want to fund animal exhibits and the Zoo Plan should be amended to strike out the unnecessary large buildings which are totally unrelated to animal care or exhibition. The dubious proposition that commercializing the park property will return large sums of money which will trickle down to the animals is not persuasive.
The zoo has limited area; some of the new exhibits such as jaguar were very controversial because they are so small. The garage site extends well into the old South American Yard and covers the old prairie dog exhibit. These are prime, relatively flat areas where future exhibits could go. A garage does not belong there. Right now, the Zoo does not need an additional 700 parking spaces and will not as long as nearly 1,000 street space remain available for zoo visitor's use. This is an estimate from Zoo's EIS after subtracting resident's cars on the street. The zoo should find a way to get visitors to first use all the on site parking, then overflow the streets. This is simple by combining the admission and parking fees, then giving a discount for proof of transit use or living within walking distance. The zoo used to keep track of guests zip codes because all King County residents paid less, so this can be done. The ZS also needs to recognize that during the peak season, the zoo cannot contain many more crowds on big days. Adding more parking will reduce the pleasure of the zoo experience overall. You might find a parking place a bit easier but you won't see the animals behind the wall of people at every exhibit.