Webster Groves business district weighs adding a level to downtown garage to gain about 53 spaces

John Brown, introduced at the meeting as a representative from Development, told the Webster Groves Special Business District on June 23 that the district could add a partial third level to the east half of the downtown parking garage to gain about 53 net parking spaces.

Brown said the proposal is timed in part because a major tenant occupying nearly 20,000 square feet — identified in the meeting as Farnsworth Engineering — has signed elsewhere and is expected to vacate within about a year, creating a near-term dip in parking demand that could ease construction disruption. He said the top deck also needs a substantial renovation; the engineer’s study cited at the meeting estimated a major renovation of roughly $1.5 million, though final construction documents and bids are pending.

Why it matters: downtown business owners said limited parking is contributing to tenant decisions and constraining growth. The proposal would add capacity while crews replace or reseal the failing top deck; meeting presenters framed the timing as an opportunity to combine necessary repairs with a vertical addition so the district comes out of repairs with more spaces than it had before.

How the design would work: Brown described a plan to add a new level over the east half of the existing structure, paralleling the north ramp so the new circulation ties into the current entrance. The partial approach is intended to preserve a roughly 65–70 foot setback between the new structure and ground-floor retail on the east side, reducing the risk that storefronts would feel boxed in by new columns or walls. The presenter said the addition is an engineering challenge — new piers in a planter area may be required and the center columns would likely need augmentation if a full-deck vertical addition were attempted.

Costs and funding: meeting participants discussed industry ballpark figures of $20,000–$30,000 per structured parking space; Brown cautioned those were estimates and that actual costs would be determined by construction documents and bids. He noted existing district financing tied to a Transportation Development District (TID) that currently collects about 5/8 of 1% in sales tax and has roughly 15 years remaining. The presenter said the TID is not currently covering principal on existing bonds (he referenced about $450,000 of outstanding bonds in the conversation) and suggested the district could investigate restructuring or negotiating with the family that holds the outstanding notes. Options discussed at the meeting included raising the TID rate to 1% (a common maximum), layering a Special Improvement District (SID) to add revenue, or refinancing with new bonds; meeting speakers emphasized that none of those steps were decided and would require formal city action and further analysis.

Management and operations: because the downtown businesses are the primary users of the garage, Brown said the district might take on some management responsibility for the facility, though he framed this as a proposal to be discussed rather than a decision. Attendees also raised operational concerns about the current permit system for passes and the possibility of improving efficiency so spaces are better matched to active permits.

Maintenance and safety concerns: a business owner who said they operate on Gore Street reported ongoing leaks and concrete delamination that deposit lime on vehicles; Brown and others confirmed the planned renovation work would address waterproofing, top-deck replacement and delamination problems rather than only applying surface band-aids.

Schedule and next steps: city and district staff said construction documents are being prepared and early estimates for a deck replacement window favored a spring start (March–June) to minimize impacts on holiday and event periods. The city representative said the city owns the garage and will be involved in decisions about financing, procurement and construction sequencing. Board members were asked to submit comments by email to help the project team refine options before releasing any bid package.

What remains unresolved: no formal funding decision, no contractor selected and no final cost or exact construction schedule. The meeting included multiple feasibility and financing questions that city staff and district representatives said would be addressed in future technical studies and negotiations.

Ending: attendees thanked the presenter and agreed to continue work on construction documents, outreach to businesses and further financial analysis; no formal vote on the expansion or financing was taken at the June 23 meeting.