Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> bring back a specific range of proposals in the next four months regarding <br /> the implementation of a parking tax for all new surface parking developments <br /> on industrial or commercial usage property that exceeds 25 spaces. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor opposed the motion, reminding the council that the manager was to return to the <br />council with proposals for funding mechanisms to create a series of urban renewal districts that <br />would not be "your father's urban renewal districts," but which would reflect new ideas that <br />addressed some of the issues mentioned by councilors. He called for a more comprehensive <br />approach that involved examination of systems development charges, land use codes, <br />development standards, and environmental protections, and not necessarily a tax. He thought the <br />council could reach the same place in a totally different way. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ opposed the motion He thought the council was considering the issue in isolation of <br />other related issues. He suggested the council schedule more work sessions to consider those <br />issues in a broader context. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart did not think the City needed more taxes. He indicated that, if the motion appeared to <br />have majority support, he would vote in favor of it so he could move for reconsideration when the <br />entire council was present. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion, even though it was scaled back from what she thought was <br />needed. She agreed with the mayor that the private sector would go for the best deal, and right <br />now the best deal was development on the outskirts of town because the City was subsidizing <br />what she termed "huge surface area parking lots." She noted concerns expressed by the <br />Chamber of Commerce that the community was going to run out of commercial and industrial <br />land, and questioned how many acres of such land was taken up by surface parking. Ms. <br />Bettman suggested that if those parking lots were converted to parking structures, the inventory of <br />available land would double. That would alleviate concerns about the lack of commercial and <br />industrial property and relieve the pressure to expand the urban growth boundary. Ms. Bettman <br />thought it would provide an incentive for more efficient use of property as well as generate an <br />income stream so the City could continue to subsidize development downtown and build <br />downtown parking structures. She said the City currently did not have the money to do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He agreed with Mr. Pap~ that more options would be useful, <br />but he was "incredibly frustrated" that the council's discussions were resulting in no new ideas <br />from staff. He maintained that staff was telling the council that the issue was one of subsidy as it <br />was or no subsidy; he maintained that was "simplistic and false." Mr. Meisner supported the <br />motion as a means of getting some new information that had not been made available to the <br />council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for Mr. Meisner's comments. He said that the motion did not <br />direct the manager to impose a parking tax, but merely directed staff to bring the council more <br />information so it could evaluate such a tax. He also wanted more information about the range of <br />options Mr. Rayor mentioned. The only reason he made a motion was to elicit the research that <br />was reflected in the staff memorandum regarding a parking tax. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to substitute the motion with a <br /> motion that directed the City Manager to bring the council options on how to <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 30, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />