Zoo garage may cost taxpayers additional $4 million

Seattle taxpayers' tab for a new garage at Woodland Park Zoo could increase by almost $4 million, according to a revised city forecast.

The city's share of the cost for a controversial 710-stall garage was estimated at $8.2 million in 2005. But a new analysis by City Council staff puts the likely bill for taxpayers at $11.9 million.

The council is scheduled to vote Wednesday on selling bonds for garage construction. That step is expected to be the last council action on garage financing, which the council initially approved by a unanimous vote in 2004.

Councilman David Della, who chairs the council's parks committee, said he doesn't expect the new forecast to threaten council support for the garage. "It's not so troubling that I think we have to backtrack on our decision," Della said.

The four-story garage is projected to cost $28 million, including interest payments, over 20 years. Under an arrangement with the Woodland Park Zoological Society, a nonprofit that operates the zoo, the city would pay 75 percent of the garage cost that remains after parking revenues are used to pay down construction and operating expenses. The zoo society would pay the rest.

Council staffers revised the city's share for a garage because the initial estimate by the city's Department of Finance was considered too rosy.

Specifically, the 2005 forecast assumed that 96 percent of visitors driving to the zoo would park on-site once the garage was built. Believing that too optimistic, council analysts have assumed 75 percent of visitors would park on-site when the garage opens and that the number would increase to 88 percent over the first eight years with the garage.

With fewer drivers paying $5 to park at the garage, council staffers projected less money would be taken in to defray construction costs and that taxpayers would have to assume a larger share of garage costs.

About 55 percent of visitors now park in the 654 uncovered stalls available at the zoo. The zoo has averaged a little more than 1 million visitors annually in recent years.

Council staffers also prepared a "worst case" prediction in which the city's share could increase to $16.5 million if no more than 75 percent of visitors ever parked on-site.

City Finance Director Dwight Dively said his original forecast remains a "reasonable estimate" in a recent letter to Council President Nick Licata. But Dively admitted garage revenues could be less than projected.

Department of Finance analyst Jan Oscherwitz called the council projections conservative but within reason. "We're dealing with a lot of unknowns and can't predict with certainty how the new garage will change parking preferences of zoo visitors over time," Oscherwitz said.

The zoo society has argued that a new garage is needed because the zoo can't meet parking demands about 100 days of the year. Zoo officials also expect attendance and parking needs to increase.

Zoo Deputy Director Bruce Bohmke noted the garage could add a positive wrinkle to city finances. The city imposed a new tax on commercial parking lots this year. The zoo garage would add about $4 million in parking-tax revenue to the city's treasury over 20 years, according to council projections. But those taxes can't be used to offset zoo-garage costs because they must be spent on improvements to streets, bridges, sidewalks and bike paths.

Opponents, who tend to be residents of the Phinney Ridge neighborhood, say the "garage mahal" — as they've dubbed it — is too big, too costly and unnecessary. They packed a City Hall public hearing last week and said the garage would cause traffic problems, encourage driving and pollution, and add an eyesore to Woodland Park.

Opponent Esther Bartfeld has projected that the city's share of the garage could increase to $20.5 million if just 59 percent of zoo visitors park on-site.

Irene Wall, president of the Phinney Ridge Community Council, said she was hopeful the council "will have an epiphany" and realize the garage is a "huge financial mistake."

Della said that is unlikely. "While there have been some adjustments in projections, they're not substantive enough to cause the council to reverse our decision," he said.

Bob Young: 206-464-2174 or byoung@seattletimes.com