Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fart asked if the working ending fund balance was turned over to the General Fund. Mr. <br />Luell said that the working ending fund balance stayed within the Parking Enterprise Fund; he <br />estimated the balance to be $2.5 million at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Fart asked if the <br />balance was growing. Mr. Luell said that it had in past years, but because the program was now <br />on an operating basis and because of long-term maintenance demands, the balance would fall. <br />Mr. Fart asked if the Parking Funds contributed dollars to the General Fund outside the in-lieu of <br />street parking payments. Mr. Luell said that the Parking Funds paid a Central Service Allocation <br />(CSA) of about $250,000 to the General Fund. Mr. Farr asked if the Parking Fund was <br />subsidizing the General Fund. Mr. Johnson said that to the degree that the $900,000 in <br />contributions to the General Fund was the council's to allocate as it wished. He confirmed, in <br />response to statement from Mr. Fart, that the anticipated Parking Fund deficits could be <br />decreased by a smaller contribution to the General Fund. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he was not interested in eliminating the City bus pass program for employees; if the <br />City was soliciting the participation of businesses in the program it made no sense to drop the <br />City's program. Mr. Farmer observed that was one area in which the City was operating as a <br />TMA, adding that if the City did not have such a program it would be asking for a TMA to be <br />formed. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr about the neighborhood permit program, Mr. Luell cited <br />the University area as an area in the community where residents were unable to easily find <br />parking on their block because of heavy use of the area. The City had developed a parking <br />system that limited parking for nonresidents and permitted long-term on-street parking for <br />residents. The City was implementing the program on a block-by-block basis for any group of <br />property owners requesting it. Mr. Farmer observed that such programs were popular <br />nationwide. There were many cities who choose to make the program operate on a "pay-as-you- <br />go" basis. Eugene had not done so, and essentially the fund subsidized the program. Mr. Farr <br />thought it would be self-defeating to eliminate the program. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart suggested that the discussion was actually one of how to continue to subsidize the <br />General Fund with Parking Funds at the current level and still maintain other programs that <br />implement transportation demand management. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that parking in Eugene was a good value based on the information from other cities. <br />He believed the council needed to discuss how Eugene could increase revenues while <br />continuing to provide that good value. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the background materials. He raised a broader issue of parking <br />outside downtown and indicated his desire for a more comprehensive discussion of approaches <br />such as taxes on surface parking, fees when a development provided more than the minimum <br />number of surface parking spaces, etc. He called on staff to develop some specific proposals <br />around the topic for the council to discuss. Mr. Kelly wanted downtown to thrive, but did not think <br />the City could act in downtown in isolation in terms of competition with peripheral businesses. <br /> <br />Regarding the possibility of additional structured parking downtown, Mr. Kelly said he was not <br />interested in more publicly owned structures downtown, particularly given the debt service <br />associated with such projects. He wanted the City to work with private developers to provide <br />structured private parking. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />