CC Minutes - 05/30/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Farr thought the City had gradually improved the appearance of its parking structures as time went on and it should be commended for that. Regarding taxing parking lots outside of downtown, Mr. Farr opposed that approach. He said that the costs would merely be shifted to the customers of the business concerned. He believed that if the council was to get the development it wanted downtown, it would have to continue to subsidize parking. Mr. Kelly said that Salem has free parking downtown because downtown businesses pay a monthly fee to make it available. He suggested Eugene businesses could be asked to pay for free parking downtown. He said that any incentives for downtown development needed to be placed in a citywide context and be made revenue-neutral, or the costs be shifted to other places on the basis of policy decisions. For example, the systems development charges for development downtown could be decreased, and those revenues replaced by an increase in the fee for development at the periphery. Mr. Kelly said that he would not support any future proposal for a parking structure that was supported only by the City. He wanted the participation of the public sector, and wanted to see follow-up on his past suggestions to reduce the differential in parking costs between the downtown and periphery. He wanted staff to provide alternatives for a parking tax. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a specific range of proposals in the next four months regarding the implementation of a parking tax for all new surface parking developments on industrial or commercial zoned property that exceeds 25 spaces. Mr. Farr indicated opposition to the motion. He said that it was not a viable option if the City wanted to have development continue as it preferred. He reiterated his concern about cost- shifting. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She wanted such a tax on all such lots, including existing surface parking lots. She suggested a friendly amendment to include residentially zoned property in the motion. She feared that developers would look for commercial property next to residential property and use the residential land for parking. Mr. Kelly declined to accept the amendment because he thought the focus of the amendment should be on usage rather than zoning. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by adding residentially zoned property. Mr. Kelly said that he would have accepted a friendly amendment that addressed the usage of the property. Ms. Bettman withdraw her amendment. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Bettman to change the word "zoned" to the word "usage." At the request of Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly repeated the motion, which now read: MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 30, 2001 Page 6 Work Session