08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Counc:ilrriim Murray was not greatly concerned about the .abuse of meters as it affected downtown shopping' because it was .his under.,,-t'andihg there we.ten't too many meters in the immediate. downtown area and because of the free par'k inq program. However, he was concerI}ed a'bout the misuse of restricted pa'rkiny spaces surrounding the e downtown in the residential areas where employes are parking all day rather than using the. inon.thly parking lots. lie thought the proposed incrE1a'se would be one way oE discouraging that practice. Mayor Anderson agreed with that viewpoint.. He commented that a city parking facility operating at a deficit anyplace else would be cause for citizen concern so it would seem that the cost of contrOlling parking spa c:eson public streets should also be of concern. Mr. Hamel agreed that the program shbuld not operate at a de.ficit. He asked whether the city was still patrolling the areas where meters had been turned over to the Univer'si.ty. Also, whether collection of all the revenues from delinquent pay- ments would be enough to break even. Al Williams answered that service was ,reduced in the University metered areas, but that personnel formerly patrolling ,the meters were released for more effective control of time limit zones, driveways, yellow zones, etc., in the residentia.l areas not receiving it befo're. lie said tlwt if all the delinquent payments were recei ved the program would more than breaJ:. oven. Councilman Keller thought if the penalty for del inquent payment was .increased to only $3.00, that would more than cover the deficit. He added that the shoppers in down- town were using the metered areas just as much as the employes and he didn't feel they should have their overtime bail increased. And employers were trying to supply adequate parking, he said, but even though the Downtown Development Board was trying to add parking for employes that was not necessarily the total answer. He thought the motion should be amended to provide f(;T a $3.00 .late payment fine, leaving the present $1.00 fee for overtime parking. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hallie] to amend the motioIl to provide that alternate language be prepared by staff for amending the ordinance e which would retain the present $1.00 overti me Jlarkin~! fIne alld increase the delinquent payment fine to $3.00 rather than $4.0u. Motion carried Comm unanimously. 8/6/75 Pub Hrng Vote was taken on the main motion as amended. Moti on ca rr i erl unanimously. Manager reviewed the proposed amendment which would change the overtime parking bail from $1.00 to $2.00, going to $4.00 if not paid within seven days (formerly five days). The change, he said, was an attempt to curb abuses of parking and provide more space turnover. He explained further that the amendment would change the booting fee from $5.00 to $10.00. An alternative to doubling the bail was also proposed - leaving the initial penalty at $1.00, but changing the fee for late payment, more than seven days, to $3.00. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 920 - Amending City Code Section 5.660 re: Overtime Parking was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. II -A-l Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. e Councilman Keller asked the intent of the bill read. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, answered that the bill presented contained the provision for $2/$4 overtime parking fee. He added that a bill containing the alternative $1/$3 provision had also been prepared. Mr. Keller said he would vote against the $2/$4 version for all the reasons previously stated in committee discussion. 44\0 8/11/75 - 9