10/10/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to the process involved in developing the program, Mr. Hanks said e staff had relied on the institutions to make contact with their employees, which apparently was not adequately done. He said that all individuals involved must be given the opportunity to provide input on the program for evaluation. He said the input was important throughout the demonstration period and said he welcomed the comments given during the testimony. In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said the budget was developed on a month- by-month basis and the effect of dropping the $17.50 fee could not be easily determined. He said that part of the budget was based on enforcing the fee in the neighborhood. He said that other revenues anticipated in the program were fines and forfeitures for violations and daily permits. Mr. Hanks explained that the demonstration project was based on the two-hour spaces with permits being sold to commuters and that dropping the permits would remove the program from the demonstration project. Mr. Hanks said that ongoing evaluations would be performed during the two-year period and a final report would be presented at the end of the project. Mr. Hanks said he was not sure of the number of spaces to be eliminated with the implementation of the Woonerf project, but he felt that it would not be a substantial number of spaces overall. In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said that no limit would be placed on the number of parking permits sold, but he added that there would be no more permits sold than the number of individuals now parking for free. He suspected that the number of individuals parking in the area would be reduced due to the cost of the permits. He explained that the City regularly sold more permits than spaces in the downtown structures. He added that the study would determine those areas with high demands for parking. Mr. Hanks said that a limit on the number of e free permits had not yet been set, stating that the system had been used success- fully in the South University area. In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said that Sacred Heart Hospital was pro- viding 784 parking spaces, of which only 650 were demanded. He added that an additional 156-342 parking spaces outside the parking structure were demanded, possibly due to shift overlap. He said that the University of Oregon quoted a demand of 1,130 spaces over the number available for employees and a surplus of 130 spaces for students. Mr. Hanks commented that these numbers were question- able and that he would study them further. Responding to a comment by Councilor Schue, Mr. Hanks said he did not have any information on the utilization of the Sacred Heart parking structure. He said the shift overlap did create a double demand on parking, but he added that there was usually a substantial reservoir of parking after the shift change. He said that some employees might not use the structure because they already assumed the difficulty in finding a parking space. He said he had performed several hospital studies throughout the country and he said that hospitals did not stagger their shifts due to the shift changeover routine. He added that Sacred Heart was staggering its quitting time for nurses, allowing some individuals to leave when there was a decreased demand, but he said this created a problem in carpooling. In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said it was possible that the BLM employees, as well as other individual employees, were not notified during the planning process. He said that notices were placed on windshields of cars parked in the e area prior to the implementation of the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 11