|
<br /> lots in the vi. cinit!Fof .dty hall were $1"3.00 per month. Administrative costs for.
<br /> ticketing 'overtime violations are.estimated at 6l~ per ticket - attendants, mailers,
<br /> etc. - and that does not include. any capital expenditures. He said it was diffi-
<br /> cult to determine.how many,.were choosing the $1.00 overtime route rather than e
<br /> inOnthly parking perniits. However, ,theineter attel?dants are kept busy, he said.
<br /> They~ssue;i tations. .for violations other thiuijust overtime parking,: ilJ)d at the
<br /> $13.00 per ];lont} rate there.is a.waiting lis.t to gfi't on the city lots..
<br /> . .
<br /> Councilman K'.::.ller . agreed with Mr. williams' viewpoint. He.said the DOWntown Develop-
<br /> ment ~oard had a..procedure for h~li.ng:a.U-da!J piJrkfJrs, that the overtime parking
<br /> ci O' ::...c.:n was offensive and irritating . He thQqght"that levyi,ngthe fine was con-
<br /> trary to stated 'importance of the.QQwntown asa.~etailand commercial center, that
<br /> 3.1 i it was doing was penalizing; al4toi,sta for u!ling to get tqere. He hoped another
<br /> way could be found to take .care of the. proble".., ..
<br /> ; , . '.".~ , ,., ., ; .' , ,,:> ; .,
<br /> Counc~lwoman Beal expressed:..smaz....nt at ,.~. ,lCellti',r's"(reedan with'the taxpayers
<br /> money." . She said it w.Js,not cMl'acteristiq of him. ,She ..not onlY supported the' bail
<br /> bt''= alsc the mon.thly parking fees, saying people parking their cars downtown usually
<br /> had a pre:;tygOOd idea.orbOW"'much ,ti~_ Chell had ~to,do,their.ahopping. Mr. Keller
<br /> thought the concern e%pZ'l1ssed:tlith ,wasting the.tupagers money was not relevant be-
<br /> caus€ the maj~r portion of.. the ;eos.t: for downtown ,parking was being paid by the down-
<br /> town merchants. And the n1ckel,or,dillt9 put ,J.lltD the meters, he said, was the iJi-
<br /> di-,idual's money, not the general taxpayer's. It was more amazing to him, he said,
<br /> thar: one "'(':.lid want to. increasettb.e ove~tilfl8..ti.n"$.,w~I,J_.:$60.00 fee. for amusement
<br /> dev~ces .had just.been ,lowred,:to,.$2~~OO?N14 ;the,.~~ .tfHIt9r licensing ,dogs had
<br /> just been ,:ived for 14 da!ls. He called it "just running around in circles."
<br /> Mrs. Seal felt. the l4-da!1. waiVCilr was jUBttfte4(.~"~ .iRcentive to get people to
<br /> license their dogs, that. the .1oweramus_nt.;dev~Cll!t teelllOuld work to. the benefit
<br /> of the city. Councilman lIurra!l sQllll!lwhat J.n jest,BaidMr.lCeller seemed willing to
<br /> waste the taxpayers mone!l in his recent actions with regard to an appeal in the
<br /> Cross sui t.
<br /> Mr. Murray then asked how many meters there were in the downtown area. Assistant e
<br /> Manager noted that the meters referred to were not in the fre" parking area downtown.
<br /> They were on the periphery, and their purpose was to stimulate parking turnover.
<br /> He said a number of alternates could be explored if the bail remai~s at 51.00,
<br /> for instance the late fee could be increased. He noted that Salem trebled the
<br /> overtime fee {f not paid within the required time. He suggested holding the item
<br /> for further discussion at the next committee meeting if the Council wanted to give
<br /> some direction as to the type of things staff should be looking at. a-
<br /> Mr. Murray shared Mr. Williams' and Mr. Keller's viewpoints with regard to the fine
<br /> for overtime parking in the downtown area itself. He sensed no clear-cut need
<br /> for the increase. But he didn't feel that way about overtime parking in the
<br /> peripheral area, saying he knew there was abuse of parking privileges in the resi-
<br /> dential neighborhoods near the downtown area.
<br /> Councilman Williams suggested consideration of issuance of multiple parking tickets
<br /> on vehicles in "dead storage." Assistant Manager noted that the "boot" was generally
<br /> used when a number of tickets accumulated without payment. Carom
<br /> It was understood the issue would be brought back . Jr further discussion 7/16/75
<br /> at a future committee meeting. Affirm
<br /> O. Transferring Zone Change Considerations to Hearings Official - Council members re-
<br /> ceived with the agenda copies of memo (July 17, 1975) outlining issues staff felt
<br /> should be resolved before there was further work on drafting the ordinance requested
<br /> by the Council that would transfer zone change considerations to a hearings offi-
<br /> cial. Recent state legislation having implications on the proposed change were noted
<br /> in the memo and policy issues were spelled out: (1) Should the hearings officer or e
<br /> the Council make final determination on zone change requests; (2) does the Council
<br /> want specific provision for its review of decisions made by the hearings officer;
<br /> (3) does the Council want to hear appeals or delegate that function to the Planning
<br /> Commission; and (4) does the Council wish to limit the scope of appeal hearings or
<br /> have them remain as full, evidentiary hearings? Manager noted that the city now
<br /> 7/28/75 - 10 4Ze,
<br />
|