|
<br />--
<br />
<br />of conditions. Mrs. Beal said she agreed with Mr. Murray. When $100,000 is going.
<br />into this program to keep the elderly in their homes, money on,which interest is not
<br />being paid, why charge the elderly inte;est. Mr. McDonald disagreed with Mr. Murray
<br />land Mr. Hershner. He said that, when people have bo~ght a home and have it paid for and,
<br />are ona fixed income, they sho~ld not be charged because the city changes and incurs ,1,
<br />an assessment. Mr. Keller said the intent was to receive back some funds with which
<br />to operate the account. The feeling was, too, that, older people have pride in what
<br />they do and would ,not object to a minimal rate. He hoped that the Council would support'
<br />, the program as presented. Mr. Wood_questioned the $20,000 limit on assets in addition
<br />! to the value of the home. Shirley Swenson of the Finance Department referred to the
<br />'prqgram in Boulder, Colorado, saying that that program was not being widely used because
<br />,the $15,000 limit was too low. $20,000 was felt to be a more reasonable figure.
<br />
<br />In answer to Mrs. Campbell, Ms. Swenson said the $100,000 appropriation figure should
<br />be more than sufficient to cover the cost of the program.
<br />
<br />,Some feeling was expressed that the $20,000 asset limitation figure was too high. Mr.
<br />Murray said he did not agree that $20,000 is a lot by today's standards. Mrs. Beal
<br />pointed out that the original idea was that~ since the cash is allocated for this
<br />program, the interest should be written off. She expressed her acceptance of the 3%
<br />,rate, however. Manager said the quantity of uses of this fund will be small as compared
<br />ito the total program of improvement and that, if the level of interest proves to be
<br />; too low, there is no reason why a change cannot be made. It seems the program should be
<br />;.tried on anexperiinental basis at least. Mr. Murray added that eligibility standards
<br />,would be reassessed after two years.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />i
<br />:1
<br />
<br />Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all councilmen present voting
<br />,~,ye except, Hershner voti.,ng no.
<br />
<br />C.Central Eugene Parking Program - ERA was present to review the parking program. Manager,
<br />said the program seems to have answered the No.1 C011cern which was to provide short-ter~'
<br />free parking for people's needs supported by those having occupations in the area. The
<br />City is in the process of filing with the DEQ the environmental impact statement for the
<br />;~ntire downtown program so that the DEQ can view the total picture as projected. Mr.
<br />[Hunt said the parking objectives included applying C'-2 parking standards to downtown,
<br />lproviding consolidated parking and good facili~ies for the general public. In showing
<br />maps of the parking facilities available in the downtown area in 1967 and in 1974, not
<br />much difference appeared between the two.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />Bob Thomas said a consultant was hired to help analyze the needs. The first thing he
<br />did was inventory the existing supply of parking. He came up with 2600 parking spaces,
<br />about half of C-2 requirements. (5600 is felt necessary for C-2). He then looked at
<br />demand figures and broke those down to short-term patrons, clients, long-term
<br />employees, etc. - also, businessmen who, when visiting clients,'need ready parking
<br />close to the clients' offices. The "now demand" is 70% of what C-2 requires, indicating
<br />that the long-term employee need of 1300 spaces is not being met. The urban design
<br />consultants also have been considering what to do with the Mass Transit Central Transit
<br />Station. The recommendation was the Willamette Street area, between 7 and 8th, on a
<br />half-block wide area. TWo factors were involved in the decision: Convenience for
<br />transferring and keeping the transit station close to the'core.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />I,Traffic Engineer said it appears the parking program has been very effective, especially
<br />,in terms of client-customer types of businesses. The9 cost is running around $220,000
<br />:a year to provide the free spaces. An important factor at this stage is how to handle
<br />Idemands for long-term parking. For example, he has a request from the developers of
<br />:the South Park and the Citizens Bank Building to gua,rantee business parking spaces in
<br />ithe overpark. The concern of the developer is that, to attract prospective tenants,
<br />iit is necessary to give them a guarantee of available parking. It may become necessary
<br />to transfer other persons using the overpark to different lots. In order to proceed
<br />:withredevelopment, it is necessary to fulfill business parking needs for people wanting
<br />;to'lease commercial space. ERA director said formulating these plans is the next step.
<br />!They have set out the goals and concepts are being developed. In the first part of
<br />:June, they will present abbreviated sketches and hope to bring task force recommendations,:
<br />ioutlining advantages and disadvantages, and make a decision at that time as to moving
<br />i~head. The staff feels strongly that a parking structure south of 8th is needed which
<br />iwould serve that general area plus relieve the 'lOth & Oak structure.
<br />I
<br />'Manager stated that, at the beginning, the one goal was to cement a strong downtown
<br />iarea through a renewal project. Since that time another strong goal has been developed,
<br />!to find alternate methods of transportation that would give a more equal modal split
<br />'---,,_, ........ - __ ....... _h ... .... l .n_ _........u___
<br />and reduce the ~eliance on the auto. The interesting development is that, in the eyes ~
<br />of the consultants and DEQ"a strong downtown is a very essential part of a strong mass
<br />transit program because the alternative is the scatterization of downtown activities '
<br />to peripheral areas, increasing the..,need for auto transportation rather than making it .
<br />, possible for,people to use mass transit and get their ~ctivities efficiently' accomplished.:
<br />. -'~---"_'_"'_---_'__'_--~--,,""----.._----_._~.,._- -.. - --.-_. :;--,--- ,..._._,..._.,-~- -~ -"'-~~---'-'--"-_.-.--."'-'-~~''''-------~
<br />
<br />\
<br />'I
<br />,
<br />I
<br />I
<br />1
<br />I
<br />
<br />13Co
<br />
<br />5/6/74 - 9
<br />
|