07/28/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

K. Council Minutes - March 24, 1975 as circulated Approve - L. Screening Parking Facilities - Councilman. Murray noeed the mention of insuffi- cient screening of parking facilities in the recent discussion of bike lanes on Pearl and High Streets. He asked that the subject be a matter of discussion Comm . at some future committee meeting since he =elt parking areas should be screened 7/16/75 and that it would become more of an issue. Affirm M.cross Case ~ Assistant Manager informed the Council that an appeal was filed by the private sector from the court order for removal of the Cross from Skinner Butte. However, he suggested reconsideration of the July 14 Council action which would preclude anyone else from filing an appeal should the present ap- pellants withdraw after the deadline, which they have the ability to do. Councilman Hamel asked about the city's responsibility with regard to the estimated $2500 cost for taking the Cross down. Assistant Manager answered that the costs would be levied against the city since it was under court order to remove the Cross. On questioning from Councilwoman Shirey, Assistant Manager explained that the city still had time to file an appeal. However, if the present appellant wi thdraws, the city has only until July 22 to file. Councilwoman Bea1 thought there would be a public relations problem in discussing the issue at this time without any public notice, especially since a decision had been made at the July 14 Council meeting. Mayor Anderson didn't think there was any critical change, that it was more a matter of procedure to follow so far as filing an appeal. He said the record so far had shown the Council indicated a willingness to go ahead and file an appeal. HOIo' that would be done would not require extensive public hearing. Mr. Keller hoped for discussion of the Monday e action in light of the filing of the appeal by others, saying it seemed a logical assumption, or at least the intent of his motion at that time was not to oppose the city's filing an appeal. Ma~c~ ~nierson ruled further discussion out of order. Councilman Haws said his understanding of Monday night action was for the ci~y Comm to file if <omeone else did not. He assumed that if someone else had filed 7/16/75 the city wa.<- back in the same position before the Monday action was taken. Affirm The Mayor ruled that the only action would have to be a motion ":0 reconsider No action the dec~sion ~nd if that was defeated the decision would stand - meaning nothing would be dore. Mr. Keller moved second. by Mr. Williams to reconsider the issue at the conclusion of the agenda for the adjourned Council meeti.PJg this evening (July 16, 1975). Motion defeated, Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, Br~dley, Heols, and Shirey voting no. N. ~il for Overtime Parking - Council was asked to authorize change in fine for vio1a- t~ons o~ meter ~nd overtime parking fr~ $1.00 to $2.00 with the provision that that amount ~ Qoub~ed if not paid within the required five days ($4.00). Assistant Manager explaJned tnat the current $1.00 fine because of the general inflationary trend no longer had a deterrent effect. Also, enforcement costs were rising. Counci~man Williams said he thought the overtime parking fine was one of the most offens~ve. and co':nterproductive charges the city could levy. He said people were e ~und t~"2 d. cvuz:a~ed from going downtown if :there was any possibility of receiv- ~ng a fu;e f0L' arr~v~ng at their car five minutes after the parking time expired. He asked what ~h~ charge was for a1l-d~y parking on city lots, how the ;:eceipts of the metere~ parkLng program compared w~th cost. ~( operating it, how many people ~ere ele:t~ng :c .pay the overtime parking fee rather than purchasing a monthly park- ~ng pernut. A;s~stant Manager answered that the monthly parking permits on city 42~7 7/28/75 - 9