08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Upon councilman Keller's request for identiflcation of the prime prohlem area, Al Williams answered that it was around the Un_iversi ty. Commercial uses in that area were most sensi ti ve to need for reduction in time limi ts or turnover in space because of meter feeding by students. Mayor Anderson commented that the parking en- . forcement in the University area was initiated by the University .itself. When Councilman Haws asked whether it was requested by ~he university OT businessmen near there, Mr. Williams explained that the University had requested control of the meters on University Street and 15th Avenue. The city agreed and sold the meters to the University. Councilman Keller asked. if the subcommi ttee appointed to work w_i th the Uni versi ty on parking enforcement was still functioning. Also, for comment with regard to people who were gaining permanent parking space by paying. overtime parking fines rather than buying monthly parking space. Assistant Manager said an ad hoc committee had worked with the University on its parking problems. The ci ty had tried to per- suade the University to control the number of cars students were allowed to have and although the University was still. working on that angle they felt such a re- striction would reduce student attendance. He thought there might be the possibility of working through neighborhood groups to effect some solution in that area. With regard to abuse of time restrictions, Assistant Manager said that multiple tickets are issued to autos overs.taying the parking limi ts. However, the financial sting of $1.00 per ticket no longer appeared to deter prolonged violations. He called attention to the $1.32 average ticketing cost and the 619 cost fi~lre previously given in error and the resulting deficit larger than originally estimated. Councilman Murray wondered whether adoption of the increased bail amounts would re- sult in moving the all-day parkers farther into residential areas, assuming that most of those abusing the time restrictions were downtown employes. Al williams thought not. He said he was aware that Mr. Murray's concerns were with the westside area adjacent to the downtown and explained that adequate monthly parking with low fees was available there. In fact, he said, with co-operation of property owners in e that area there was the possibility of removing some of the time restricted and metered park.ing there. Also, the employes using those parking areas for the most part were part-time workers or worked in positions where they were unable to leave the job to feed. the meters or remove chalk marks. In contrast, ne said, on the southeast side of the downtown area most of the people using parking space were office workers, and their employers, too, who were able to leave work and feed the meters. So the problems occurred in different areas according to adjacent land uses. In further response to Councilman Murray, Mr. Williams said the Downtown Develop- ment Board did anticipate allocating about another 200 spaces for monthly parking. As a note of interest, he said, eve~ the private lots on the west side were not always full. And the owners of those agree that the employes parking on that side will park in unzoned areas because they cannot afford to pay the monthly parking fee. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws to accept the recommendation and prepare an ordinance which would increase the overtime parking fine to $2.00 and the penalty for nonpayment within five days to $4.00; which would allow the "boot" to be affixed to an auto having three delinquent traffic citations or fines totaling more than $10.00, the fines being delinquent 30 days or more; and which would increase the fee fQr immobilizing a vehicle to $10.00. Councilman Keller said he would vote against the motion. His primary concern was that it would discourage people from going downtown when every effort was directed toward development of that area. He thought it might be better to deal with the University area separately from the downtown area. He was not opposed to increasing . the fine for delinquent payments but thought that adding another dollar just because the present-day dollar was not a sufficient amount to deter violations was contrary -{,/- to the effort being put forth downtown. 8/11/75 - 8 4-4'b