02/08/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Answering Ms. Ehrman's question about assigning areas and days, Mr. Swanson explained that neither the present nor the proposed ordinance addresses that business practice. Ms. Utecht continued by saying the proposed ordinance would transfer responsibility for recycling from the City to the haulers; would provide for a continuing five-year license term as opposed to the present set five-year term; and would increase licensing fees to produce $85,000 annually. Mr. Holmer observed that the public hearing on February 13 would consider a revised version of the ordinance. Ms. Utecht added that because policy would be established by criteria, at Mr. Holmer1s suggestion, the criteria would be transferred from administrative rules to the ordinance. She noted that administrative rules set up the procedures for implementation of policies established by ordinance. Responding to Mr. Boles's comments regarding his concern that insufficient attention is being focused on recycling, Ms. Utecht said consideration of a rate structure that will provide incentives for recycling will be on the board's agenda after guidelines are established by the ordinance. VII. WORK SESSION: PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW GROUP (DRG) e City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Scott Luell, Planning, Development, and Building staff, reported that the Downtown Development District Review Group has reviewed parking programs and assessment districts to develop recommendations in an effort to solve the inequities and budget deficit in the Downtown Development District (ODD). Mr. Luell said there is presently a $143,000 annual deficit. The DRG recommends that the ODD parking program be a three-hour free one, with citation thereafter on 1,000 of the 1,350 currently free spaces; and that the remaining 350 free parking spaces be metered to produce new meter revenue (this would include all 150 free on-street and all 200 free spaces in the Overpark). In an effort to explain the relationship between General Fund and meter revenue, Mr. Gleason said the assets associated with the production of the revenue (parking structure or the street) are supported by different funds. He recommended approaching the problem by letting the revenue follow the appropriate asset, so if the revenue comes from parking meters (the street), it should go back to the General Fund, and if it occurs in a parking structure, it should return to the parking fund. Mr. Gleason continued by saying that over time, the ODD portion going to parking will be reduced, the funds will become financially stable, and the General Fund will receive additional income. The free parking program will be shifted toward Charnelton, which is closer to the commercial district. Mr. Gleason's opinion was that free parking in the Overpark and Parcade causes more problems than it solves. The net effect of the policy choice before the council will be that meters are added where free parking programs ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1989 Page 9