Council divides on proposed long‑term parking agreement for Black Lot; no consensus at workshop

City staff presented an evaluation of proposals for long‑term management of the city‑owned Black Lot near Westgate and the pedestrian underpass and recommended awarding RFP 25‑46 to Vi Resorts LLC; the council did not reach consensus at the workshop and asked for further work.

Levi Gibson, director of budget and finance, reviewed the city’s investments in parking infrastructure and the Black Lot’s construction cost: staff said the city spent approximately $27.2 million on the Black Lot (including a pedestrian passageway estimated at $3.5 million and a $1.0 million water line). To date the lot had generated no material parking revenue for the city, Gibson said, and the city has borne annual maintenance costs (sweeping, lighting, striping, utilities) for the asset.

Staff’s RFP sought a parking operator that could both manage daily operations and align with the Westgate/Vi Resort customer experience while complying with a parking settlement agreement that excludes vendor management or collection of NFL event days (events of 40,000+ attendees). A three‑person staff evaluation panel recommended Vi Resorts LLC. The vendor proposed a fixed annual payment to the city of $500,000 (paid monthly as $41,666) escalated each year by CPI or 3% (whichever is lower). The first term in the proposed agreement is 25 years with two optional ten‑year renewals at the city's discretion (total possible duration 45 years). Staff presented a 25‑year cumulative payment projection of roughly $18.2 million and estimated the city would avoid about $4.4 million in operations and maintenance costs by transferring those responsibilities to the vendor; staff also estimated a conservative sales‑tax lift of $725,000 related to paid parking activity and a combined 25‑year value of roughly $23.4 million.

Key agreement features led to council debate. The vendor would operate the lot but would not collect on NFL/mega event days per the settlement; the vendor would be responsible for lot operations, maintenance, trash, utilities and two retention basins. Council members raised questions and concerns over several contract elements the vendor had not included in its RFP response (city procurement required certain insurance and a revenue‑sharing proposal), the length of the agreement and the 24‑month “termination/renegotiation” notice and buyout provisions. Several councilmembers said a 24‑month window to renegotiate or terminate for convenience with reimbursement obligations effectively locks the city into a long arrangement while giving the operator the benefit of near‑term revenue; one councilmember said the contract as drafted would produce an estimated $12 million or more in foregone revenue over 25 years compared with stronger revenue‑sharing alternatives the city had sought.

Some councilmembers supported the staff recommendation, noting the guaranteed annual payment and that the vendor assumes day‑to‑day demand and supply risks (including the rise of shared‑ride/autonomous vehicles and competitive parking supply). Supporters argued that transferring operating and maintenance risk and providing stable revenue for the city was a prudent path and that the city could renegotiate or exercise exit rights if results warranted. Opponents said the level of financial detail provided in the RFP responses and the proposed contract required more negotiation, questioned whether capital reconstruction obligations properly sat with the city, and asked staff to return with negotiating alternatives, including a shorter initial term, stronger revenue sharing, clearer audit rights, and a lower termination/buyout period.

Because councilmembers did not reach consensus, staff will return with additional analysis and negotiating options; the award was not finalized at the workshop. The item remained scheduled for a voting meeting where council may take final action after further staff work, or staff may present revised terms.