Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
how the ordinance encouraged or discouraged bicycle use. Mr. Carlson pointed out that the <br />purpose of the ordinance regarded parking fees for motorized vehicles. The council would create <br />an incentive for bicycle use by removing the $3 limit and allowing more to be charged for parking. <br />Mr. Rayor feared that the cost of bicycle parking would rise as well as a result of the cap's <br />removal. Mr. Carlson said that the City did not specify what event sponsors using City facilities <br />charged for bicycle parking. Mr. Rayor thought that when event sponsors used City facilities they <br />should not create a situation that discouraged bicycle use. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner recommended Mr. Rayor request a work session on the topic. <br /> <br />Mr. Medlin said that currently, the City does not charge for bicycle parking. He said that the <br />bicycle parking associated with football games was part of the transportation demand <br />management (TDM) plan with the University of Oregon, and was operated by the 20-30 Club. He <br />said that the City could discuss the issue with the University in the context of negotiations <br />regarding the TDM plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported Option A as recommended by staff. She asked how oversized vehicles <br />were addressed by the proposal, and if the City charged variable rates. Mr. Medlin said that if a <br />vehicle took up multiple parking spaces, the vehicle operator was required to pay for them. All <br />spaces were marked and easily identifiable. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the person collecting <br />the parking fees would know that a vehicle would be taking up multiple spaces. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Medlin said that the cost of parking was <br />included in the cost of the special event permit if the event operators wished to manage their own <br />parking. He cited Art in the Vineyard as an example of such an event. Event operators can <br />decide whether to subsidize parking with gate revenues, for example. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 indicated support for both options and asked what market City staff considered when <br />setting parking fees. Mr. Medlin said staff considered the local market for events when <br />considering event fees. Mr. Scheeland added that the Cultural Services Division looked at <br />market rates in the northwestern states and found that in terms of structured parking, $3 was at <br />the Iow end of the market. He noted that he had met with the Hult Center's resident company <br />managers that morning to inform them that the council was contemplating the action before it <br />because of the impact on those companies' patrons. There was no objection from the resident <br />companies at this time. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City examined private lot rates. Mr. Scheeland said <br />no. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor confirmed with Mr. Sheeland that the proposal encompassed events at the Cuthbert <br />Amphitheater where parking demand was expected to be heavy and must be managed. Ms. <br />Taylor did not think that the City should charge for parking for cultural activities because it <br />discouraged people of modest means from attending such events. She also opposed charging for <br />parking at the Eugene Celebration. She thought that bicyclists should park for free because that <br />use benefitted the community. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor preferred not to take action now. She did not support the higher cap associated with <br />Option B. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that action today would merely place the item on an public hearing agenda. He did <br />not support either option before the council. He agreed there was a problem to be addressed, <br />particularly with regard to Autzen Stadium events, but did not think either option solved the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />