Point Ruston woes intensify as parking becomes sticking point for customers, employees
Parking has become more complicated recently at Point Ruston, both for patrons and the people who work there.
Some businesses say they are no longer allowed to validate parking for customers, and more workers now must pay to park at the commercial-residential development that straddles the boundary between Tacoma and Ruston.
The timing of recent debt-collection battles in court regarding who owes how much and to whom appears to coincide with some of the changes.
The result has left some business owners feeling caught in the middle of Point Ruston’s legal imbroglios.
At least one business owner told The News Tribune recently the overall parking cost to his business will exceed an estimated $50,000 a year, while another estimated that she’d lost $250,000 in the last quarter after paid parking was introduced in July at public market parking spots.
No one directly tied to the decisions has made public why the specific changes were put into effect or explained their timing of starting at the first of the year.
The News Tribune reached out to a representative for the property management firm serving the Point Ruston Owners Association, a representative for PROA’s custodial receiver Revitalization Partners, as well as representatives for two landlords.
None so far have responded to questions about the employee parking and validation issues.
What is known is that the use of parking as a revenue stream has been a point of contention at Point Ruston for years, specifically in debt-collection cases involving the parking garage and more recently PROA’s receivership and other receiverships involving LLCs created during the site’s development.
In Revitalization Partners’ October accounting report filed in Pierce County Superior Court in December, senior director Kern Gillette wrote, “The receiver’s continuing analysis of retail parking and related validations ... required substantial time and effort. This is a complex issue involving careful interpretation of the governing documents, and is an ongoing and significant issue affecting the entire community.”
The receiver’s work involves providing neutral, third-party oversight in shoring up the site’s operations and finances for Point Ruston’s budget, which includes parking revenue.
But the employee parking and retail validation woes are among the latest in what some owners have described to The News Tribune as abrupt and confusing.
More than one owner told The News Tribune they felt like “pawns” caught in the middle of the extensive debt-collection fights between investors and owners.
“If this matter is not resolved, I will be forced to renegotiate my lease. If that is not successful, then we will consider leaving the Point Ruston property,” John Farrell, president and founder of Farrelli’s Pizza, told The News Tribune on Wednesday via email in response to questions about the parking changes.
Kelly Lockemy, owner of Twisted Fork Saloon, said in an interview this week that she is worried that all of the small businesses in Point Ruston will suffer greatly now without the ability to validate customer parking. She said Point Ruston businesses have amazing customers, but they more than likely will not continue to patronize businesses because of the new parking policies.
Lockemy estimates that her restaurant sales have gone down by 33% in the past 18 months and attributes it partially to the site’s parking policies even before the latest situation.
“We’re paying more money than anybody in Tacoma, and then they’re doing this to us,” Lockemy said. “It’s very frustrating.”
New year, new rules
According to Farrell and documents distributed to businesses and shared with The News Tribune, businesses were notified shortly before Christmas that their employees would have to park in the lower level of the parking garage at a cost of $1 plus tax an hour, using a special QR code for workers to get the employee rate.
For visitors, the parking rate is $4 an hour plus tax (for total of $5.80) to park in the Public Garage and along the streets, with tickets starting at $59 for unpaid or unvalidated parking. Three or more violations can lead to a vehicle being towed.
“Visitors can pay for their parking using the posted QR Codes located throughout the Common Parking Areas. Visitors patronizing businesses that participate in the Retail Validation System can have their parking validated by Retail Merchants,” according to the PROA parking document.
The grace period at Point Ruston is 15 minutes. Additionally, “There are no ‘in and out’ privileges. This means that a vehicle that does not use the full 15-minute grace period cannot leave the site and return later and utilize the unused time from the initial visit,” the rules state.
According to Point Ruston parking information from when paid parking was first implemented in 2018, the first hour was free, then $2 an hour after that, with public parking near the market “always free for customers.”
Lockemy of Twisted Fork noted that she pays triple net lease fees in addition to her monthly base rent. A triple net lease is an agreement on property in which the tenant agrees to pay property taxes, building insurance and maintenance.
“The triple net is supposed to cover marketing for the 20 acres, the garbage, the parking, the cleanup,” Lockemy said. “We all pay triple net fees, in which we pay for parking, and now we have to pay for our employees’ parking.”
Lockemy said that one of her employees received a $70 ticket on Jan. 2 for parking on the wrong floor of the parking garage. She contends the letter the businesses received failed to provide specific instructions on where employees should park.
Others, online or in comments sent to The News Tribune, complain of excessive enforcement.
One local couple, Mary and Neal Shonnard, addressed an email to both a News Tribune reporter and the site’s property management representative on Jan. 9, stating that they were “long-term loyal patrons of Point Ruston businesses.”
“The chaotic, confusing, punitive and predatory behavior of the parking surveillance company has strained our relationship,” they wrote. “Negating patron loyalty is a generational mistake. It will take a generation to reverse the schism created by any mistaken loyalty that denies the customer patron and business entity.”
They added, “We are not privy to the litigation, machinations or negotiations that propel this conflict. We do, however, align with our local businesses that suffer under this mismanagement debacle.”
Farrell of Farrelli’s stated similar concerns in his email.
“I have heard from many of our customers that they do not come as often due to the excessive enforcement of the new parking policies,” Farrell wrote.
Court battles behind the scenes
Around the same time that businesses started to receive news of the parking rules, attorneys for TerraCotta Credit REIT, one of the site’s main lenders, on Dec. 23 filed a response to a PROA receiver’s motion seeking fund disbursement for administrative costs in Pierce County Superior Court.
Lawyers for TerraCotta contend in court filings that some expenses claimed by the PROA receiver are inappropriate.
Attorney for TerraCotta Daniel Hagen wrote Dec. 23, “Simply budgeting an item does not entitle a party to an administrative claim.” Hagen further questioned invoicing and billing shared by PROA and amounts potentially owed.
Meanwhile, the receiver has defended the assessed costs as legitimate.
Amid later revised sums, Revitalization Partner’s attorney Geoffrey Groshong in a filing Jan. 3 wrote that “the sums being sought are actual and necessary expenses paid by PROA during the pendency of the receiverships.”
Also at issue is what’s owed from use of a former “free” lot for employees, an undeveloped parcel that’s one of several tied to TerraCotta’s debt collection and related parking lot lease. TerraCotta contends parking charges owed by PROA remain unpaid.
Meanwhile, PROA seeks to collect on its assessments in the receivership of five Point Ruston LLCs tied to TerraCotta’s parcels, including the former employee lot. Employee access is no longer allowed while TerraCotta and PROA grapple over what’s exactly owed and by whom.
Lockemy of Twisted Fork told The News Tribune that she refuses to allow her staff to pay for parking and plans to cover the expense herself. She calculated that she would spend an additional $110 weekly on employee parking.
Public market and parking
Elonka Perez co-owns Taco Street at the Waterfront Market at Ruston, which has operated there since 2018. She told The News Tribune on Wednesday that her situation is a bit different from businesses located in the retail corridor that includes Farrelli’s.
“Our building was never a part of the validation system,” she said. “The top level of the market was never intended to be a paid parking space location, because we are an in-and-out type of market. It’s not feasible or plausible or even affordable for anybody to come in and go out and be expected to have paid parking.”
In July 2024, that changed.
“Signs went up, and it immediately became a paid parking space,” Perez said.
That lot was where her employees had historically parked. “We were never part of the employee parking lot plan,” she added.
An attempt to be added to it was denied, she said, “So it quickly became a situation of paying $5.80 an hour when you’re selling $3 tacos.”
Perez said despite the landlord’s and building property manager’s efforts, the options were “take some sort of public transit or park down Ruston Way.”
Perez’s situation goes back to another major Point Ruston lender’s battles with debt collection, AURC III.
AURC III represents participants in a federal EB-5 program using foreign investment as pathway to citizenship. The lending entity foreclosed on portions of the garage and public market space last year.
Under the site’s governing rules, PROA retains a large portion of the parking revenue but is also responsible for the garage’s operating expenses, which AURC seeks to recoup.
“AURC is a creditor of PROA stemming from PROA’s failure to pay AURC invoices totaling over $1.9 million,” AURC attorney Russell Knight wrote in a September court filing seeking to pursue further legal action, which it received in October.
Perez said her employees recently were offered the reduced employee rate parking at the bottom of the garage but added it was not an ideal solution for her workers, noting it’s still not affordable for her business.
Meanwhile, neither Farrell nor Perez said they were aware of any near-term resolution.
“During peak season, there is not enough parking space for all the employees in the Point Ruston properties,” Farrell said via email, “... we know from experience that this is true.”
Perez said the shop owners are trying to make the best of a bad situation, with most trying to come up with creative ways to reimburse.
For her business, “We have now gone to implementing a reimbursement, since I can’t validate. If a consumer comes in and is spending some money specifically, like for a cocktail or a specialty drink, we are reimbursing their one-hour parking.”
“Please, community, continue to come down, because most of the businesses impacted by the validation system or parking system at large are trying to offer some type of reimbursement,” she said.
This story was originally published January 13, 2025 at 5:15 AM.
