City of Eugene
7/27/2007 5:20:21 PM
11/2/2006 4:12:40 PM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />"I. <br /> <br />.#-:;." <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />~.' <br /> <br />~'. <br /> <br />Council Chamber <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />June 11, 1973 <br /> <br />The regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to <br />order by his Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on June 11, 1973, in the Council <br />Chamber with the following council members present: Mrs. B~al, Mr. Williams, Mr. McDonald <br />(arrived later), Mr. Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, Messrs. Keller, Murray, and Wood. <br /> <br />I - <br /> <br />Public Hearings <br />A. Downtown Development Board - Free Parking District <br />It was explained that the Downtown Development Board has,been working on a program <br />to provide free parking to the user in the central business district, and that plan <br />is being submitted to the Council for consideration; to effect implementation a <br />ballot measure is required and also a levy outside the 6 per cent limitation to <br />those within the parking district. Immediate action on the proposal was felt necessary, <br />as the next election is July 19, 1973. <br /> <br />Traffic Engineer Al Williams explained that a year ago the City Council had formed <br />a Downtown Development Board to come back with a parking plan. That Board was an <br />outgrowth of an ad hoc committee of downtown people that had been formed after a <br />group of businessmen, ERA representatives and the City Manager had toured several <br />California cities, discovering that Santa Barbara and Santa Monica had effective <br />parking programs. Traffic Engineer further explained the plan is basically a free <br />parking program, providing free parking time within the boundaries to the shopper, <br />to be supported one-half by a license fee on businesses and one-half by a special <br />property tax levy on property within the district only. One study had indicated <br />that 90 per cent of the shoppers downtown parked for two hours or less. The new <br />free parking plan would include computer checks of those parking in the free district <br />so that abusers of the privilege could be contacted and warned by letter or possibly <br />cited if abuse continued. The cost figures for the program would not include <br />elimination of the lOth and Oak Overpark Assessment District. Only the Penney's <br />property inside the 10th and Oak district would pay the ad valorem tax. If the <br />election is successful, the Council would still be faced with approving the budget <br />and tax rate and license fee based on gross sales, and approve the rate ~f $160.00 <br />per year per professional inside t~at new parking district. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Campbell questioned the time period of the 10th and Oak overpark bond. <br />Traffic Engineer answered it was a 20-year bond issue and, when paid off, people <br />inside 10th and Oak District would transfer to the requirements of the overall free <br />parking district. Manager stated that it is hoped to use tax increment monies to <br />complete urban renewal projects. After those obligations are completed, it is hoped <br />the tax increment money could be used to payoff the 10th and Oak overpark 'assessment, <br />freeing the property owners in the district of that burden. <br /> <br />Public hearing was opened to those speaking in favor of the proposal. <br /> <br />Bob Rubenstein, Chairman of the Downtown Development Board, stated that, in the <br />best judgment of the Board, the proposed plan meets the criteria of fairne9s and <br />equity and would provide an equitable program for the core area. He pointed out <br />that objections raised to the program were (1) boundaries of proposed district, <br />(2) who would pay, (3) overpark assessment burden. In answer to objection (1), <br />the businesses between 6th and 7th on Willamette had requested deletion. The Board <br />decided not to make that exception, feeling ,the plan should have a chance to work <br />for a year before making any changes. In answer to objection (2), the Board felt <br />that the cost-sharing plan put together was the fairest possible plan, with a 50-50 <br />split of businesses and property owners and $160.00 per professional, businesses <br />paying from gross sales. In answer to (3), the Board was convinced that the <br />overpark district must be eliminated at the earliest possible date. He thanked the <br />Council for its May 16, 1973, decision to look favorably upon using tax increment <br />monies to eliminate overpark assessment. Until that happens, the Board has deferred <br />payment for those inside the overpark district if their overpark assessment exceeds <br />the ad valorem tax for the new district. Mr. Rubenstein concluded that free parking <br />would rekindle enthusiasm, benefit businesses, strengthen the retail climate and <br />encourage more people to come downtown. He urged positive action by the Council, <br />stating the need to favorably consider it now in time to be placed on the July 19 <br />ballot. He referred to the community goals and policies for Eugene adopted in 1967 <br />which stated that parking to shop must be free to the consumer in order to be <br />competitive with any outlying shopping centers. He also quoted from a letter from <br />a Eugene citizen who had complained about the extreme unfairness and inconvenience <br />of the present system. <br /> <br />6/11/73 - 1 <br /> <br />16fb <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.