Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

March 27, 2013 Dear Arts District Colleagues, We have carefully reflected on your concerns over our desire

to form a Public Improvement District (PID) for Klyde Warren Park. To address those concerns, and in anticipation of our meeting on Friday, we would like to introduce the following plan, which we believe serves the common interest of all. We sincerely hope that you will support this approach as we believe it is fair and equitable. Specifically, we believe all concerned are best served by the prompt creation of the PID that we are advocating. Once created, we would be prepared to work collaboratively to assess how we might broaden the PID to include a multi-venue approach. Of course, to do so would require all of our concerted efforts and the support of the relevant PID constituencies. Moreover, if such an effort could be collectively orchestrated and approved by voters and the City, with appropriate economics for all, the Park would be prepared to dissolve or consolidate the Park PID we currently contemplate into a broader entity. We would fully endorse a PID that would improve the infrastructure around Klyde Warren Park and elsewhere in the Arts District and the connectivity between all the venues. This plan would be detailed in the petition documents creating the broader entity. We have been heartened by the outpouring of support among property owners and others who are beneficiaries of the Park, the Perot, and the Arts District venues, and we are hopeful that they would be receptive to a larger PID approach, or some other funding mechanism that fairly represents the value creation of our organizations. Based on our interactions with the various constituencies, we are absolutely convinced that we are far more likely to be successful in the creation of the broader PID with the prompt creation of the Park PID now contemplated. With a united effort in creating the Park PID, we will have introduced the concept to those within our boundaries, making it far easier to obtain their approval for a broader PID. From our previous exchanges, we are hopeful that you will be receptive to this approach. We also should take this opportunity to correct some of the impressions that have been advanced during these discussions. The idea of a PID to benefit the Park has been contemplated from our early discussions with the City. For example, the Parks Agreement dated May 23, 2007, with the City provides in Exhibit B that the [Park] operations budget will be funded from program and event revenues, assessments, membership dues, private and corporate donations. In addition, a study we commissioned from BRV-Biederman Redevelopment Ventures, in 2006 entitled Programming, Operating, and Managing Woodall Rodgers Park, which was used in advocating for the Park, contemplates the creation of an overlay district and the creation of a voluntary assessment district as funding mechanisms. Indeed, as recently as the Parks opening, I am quoted in the special issue of DMagazine in response to a question as to how we would reach break-even The template is the Biederman Plan from Bryant Park, which receives 20% of its annual operating revenue from a Business Improvement District (BID). We believe that the creation of a Park PID would be very affordable at $250 per $1 million in valuation and would not impinge in any way on the support of the Arts District, its

cultural institutions and District-wide events and activities as claimed in your letter. The creation of a universal PID would probably take more than a year. The Park PID would provide a revenue contingency for the Park, providing approximately $500,000 per year, should the broader effort either fail or be delayed. In any event, the Park PIDs life would be only seven years after which it could only be renewed with a mandate from the property owners and approvals by the City. We look forward to discussing this option with you on Friday. Jody

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen