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

Home Browse Search

demanding additional money. from area employees. He said that he had only recently learned of the program and was unable to learn if the number of permits e issued would equal the number of spaces available. He said sufficient notice of the program had not been given. He submitted a petition signed by 86 BLM employees in opposition to the program. The petition stated that the program was ill-conceived and asked the council to reconsider the issues before making any decision. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. The meeting was recessed at 9:10 and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Ms. Shu, addressing questions raised during the public testimony, said the program would be in effect from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. She explained that the recording of vehicle license numbers was part of a study of parking turnover and not to determine the residence of the owner. She said that staff had worked with the University and Sacred Heart Hospital during the planning process. She said the hospital staff had stated they could handle any shift from on-street to off-street parking and the University said that it had spaces renting for $18 per year which were not utilized. She said the City was also working with the hospital to promote an employee ride share program. She explained the installa- tion of the sign posts went to the lowest bidder by contract; therefore the weekend installation of the poles did not result in any additional cost to the City. Regarding the inclusion of any additional areas in the program, Ms. Shu said that staff wanted to implement the program as proposed, but would begin to study the feasibility of including the area east of Hilyard Street. Ms. Shu said enforcement of the program would be postponed until November and that - permits purchased for October would be honored in November. Mr. Whitlow said he wanted to correct for the record that the program was not designed to raise revenue. He explained that the program was a two-year demonstration project with a cost of $550,000 and that the Federal grant was for approximately $240,000. He said the difference in the two figures would be raised by the selling of permits. In response to a question, Jim Hanks, City Traffic Engineer, explained that the $17.50 fee for permits was based on market costs for parking in the area. He said the fee was set at a level that would accommodate and provide incentive to use transit or alternative parking facilities. He said the Federal grant allowed for the start-up costs, public information, and for the professional evaluation of the program as charged by the Federal government. He said that staff hoped the program would be self-funding if continued. He stressed that the program was a demonstration project and that the fee could be modified to meet budgetary goals or other desires. He said that preliminary projections supported the goal to be self-supporting at the end of the two-year period if anticipated permit sales were achieved. He said the ongoing cost of the program would be approximately $125,000 per year. In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said the shift overlap at Sacred Heart Hospital was taken into consideration and could be covered by the two-hour free parking in the area. He said the permits would be sold at five or six businesses, - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 9