Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/08/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 8, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1.Work Session: Enforcement of Right-of-Way Permits Mr. Reinhard provided the staff presentation, noting the origin of the agenda topic in concerns raised by the council regarding constituent complaints about activities in the right-of-way, such as the use of the right-of-way by a contractor in a manner that inconvenienced the public. He said that there was a broad range of activities occurring in the public right-of-way regulated by the City, such as utility installation, private sidewalk construction, and materials storage. Mr. Reinhard said that such activities appeared to be under-regulated. Staff had ongoing concerns about the situation, but the issue was not a high priority in terms of resource allocation. He was seeking direction from the council, and referred the council to several suggested options in the meeting packet: 1. No change. Continue to enforce right-of-way activities at current levels. 2. Investigate opportunities to improve public awareness of the permits needed and conditions to be observed for right-of-way activities, particularly for contractors working on private building projects. Continue one-time or periodic outreach efforts to help inform contractors, homeowners, and others about appropriate use of street rights-of-way. Where needed, improve staff communication processes to enhance the ability to respond to complaints about violations of right-of-way rules. 3. Carry out a short-term (four to six months) experimental effort using a temporary staff person to closely monitor private construction that impacts the public right-of- way~ focus on enforcement of existing code provisions, and assess the extent of the problem and the potential effectiveness of adding permanent staff for this purpose. 4. Provide additional permanent staff resources for the purpose of monitoring private construction activity in the public right-of-way and carrying out enforcement as needed. This option would require addressing budgetary constraints. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor said the concerns she heard most from constituents were about bicycle lanes, specifically debris, such as leaves, in lanes that forced bicyclists out of the lane and into the street. Mr. Reinhard said that while staff worked hard to keep up with demand, leaf pickup was not as frequent as some would like. He said that in recent years the City had encouraged residents to compost leaves rather than leave them in the street. He acknowledged it was an ongoing conflict. Mr. Fart expressed concern at Mr. Reinhard's use of the word "under-regulated," saying that many people believed that many activities in the community were already over-regulated. He said that the City needed to ensure that people knew what to expect, but did not expect more than the City could reasonably deliver in terms of regulation. He suggested that if people knew what to expect, there would be no need for such a new regulation. Mr. Fart asked the council to keep those thoughts in mind. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Mr. Meisner said that all the calls he had received about right-of-way complaints were from commercial and industrial businesses concerned about the loss of access to their establishments. He said that whether there was over-regulation depended on who one asked. He did not want to create new regulations, but currently the City did not require those with right- of-way permits to notify neighboring residents and businesses that their access will be temporarily impeded. He expressed the wish there was such a notice requirement. Mr. Meisner referred to the use of the parking strip, and said he understood it was legal for a property owner to eliminate grassed areas and cover the parking strip in front of their property with rough gravel. The gravel can spill over the curb into the street and onto the sidewalk, interfering with bicycle and pedestrian access. He was not comfortable with that fact. Mr. Kelly said that when he previously raised the topic he was not proposing new regulations. He was proposing to ensure that the regulations that existed were followed. His constituent contacts were not about permitted uses, but about violations of the law. He acknowledged that the issue was not a priority for the City but he believed it deserved some level of attention. Regarding the options presented, Mr. Kelly liked option 2, and suggested that having a single staff person responsible for the issue would be useful. He added that it would be useful for the City to have a "one-stop" shop for citizen complaints. He also suggested that staff track complaints to ensure that constant offenders could be identified and further action taken. Ms. Nathanson could think of three instances where staff follow-up would have reduced citizen inconvenience and the need for later action. She described each situation and said she was interested in more discussion of the appropriate follow-up in such situations. She suggested the fact use of the right-of-way was permitted may not be relevant to the issue if the permittee did not pay attention to the regulations governing the permit. Mr. Rayor agreed that the City did not seem to have a central location the public could call if residents witnessed a violation. He did not like options 3 or 4 because each required staff resources, and suggested that the issue could be the focus of an educational program. In response, Mr. Reinhard said that there were some simple things that could be tried, such as brightly colored fliers inserted in the Permit and Information Center newsletter. He said that option 3, while requiring additional resources, would give the City a better idea of what the actual problem was. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Citing the improvements on the Ferry Street Bridge, Mr. Pap8 asked if the City was leading by example and ensuring that its contractors followed the law. Mr. Reinhard said the City took that responsibility very seriously, but acknowledged there had been some problems associated with the bridge project. Mr. Pap8 said that the City had the ability to secure agreements from those working in the right-of-way that confirm their intention to follow the applicable regulations. Mr. Reinhard said that while the current process could be improved, he believed that the lack of enforcement of those agreements in some cases was the greater problem. Mr. Pap8 suggested that the City could require contractors to certify that they had reviewed the rules. Mayor Torrey noted his interest in State legislation that allowed cities large enough to administer contracts to oversee local Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) projects. He cited ODOT's decision to send staff out to change lights during daytime, high-volume hours, requiring lane closures and backing up traffic when the work could have been done at night. As an example of his concern, Mayor Torrey suggested that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations could further develop the concept and forward it to the legislature through the League of Oregon Cities. Mr. Farr endorsed Mayor Torrey's remarks. He said that people do not care about the cause of delay, they just cared they were being delayed. He suggested that the council needed to take a big picture look at the topic, and indicated willingness as a member of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to discuss the mayor's suggestion. Mr. Farr thought the City had done a good job in educating the public about what to expect in terms of road projects during the construction season and believed a similar focus on education was called for in this instance. He expressed concern that the public had somewhat unreasonable expectations about what the City could provide and suggested again that the City needed to communicate with residents about what they could reasonably expect in terms of City services. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Farr that communication was a large part of the problem, saying that the City needed to do a better job of communicating with developers and the affected public. He also concurred with Mr. Kelly that the lack of a central answering point for complaints was an issue that should be addressed. He also believed the City needed to have a way to track repeat offenders but that data was not now collected. He asked staff to think of additional ways to communicate with those who would be affected by a temporary loss of access. Ms. Nathanson said that the City should ensure that whatever legislation it proposed had a funding source. She applauded the staff suggestion for a temporary position. She thought it was an interim approach that gave the City time to study the issue before it applied a permanent solution. Ms. Nathanson supported option 3. Mr. Lee agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He liked option 3 or option 2 as an interim measure and requested information about the fiscal impact of the proposal. Mr. Reinhard estimated the cost at $5,000 to $10,000. Mr. Lee said he needed more information about the source of the funding. He asked if either option would require code changes. Mr. Reinhard believed that the needed code language and related administrative rules were in place. He suggested that increased enforcement might reveal gaps in the existing regulations. Mr. Lee noted that the issue was not a priority for him but he was open to the staff recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly was not opposed to option 3 but felt that option 2 as augmented by his suggestions was a good start. He reiterated the need for a single answering point for complaints. He also believed that the staff answering questions and taking complaints should be clear with complainants what to expect in terms of enforcement. Regarding the issue of funding, Mr. Kelly hoped staff could adjust the budget internally as opposed to seeking supplemental funding. Ms. Taylor preferred to keep a record of complaints before a temporary staff person was hired. She agreed that the City needed a better way of answering questions and complaints quickly. Mayor Torrey asked City Manager Jim Johnson to check into how other communities addressed the issue of abandoned vehicles. Ms. Nathanson agreed with other councilors about the lack of a central complaint telephone number. Regarding the budget implications of the issue, she noted her opposition to cuts proposed in the past to land use enforcement and asked if the complaints would be handled by the Permit and Information Center or the Public Works Department. Mr. Reinhard indicated that complaints would likely be handled by the Public Works Transportation Division. Mr. Johnson indicated that staff would work with options 2 and 3 with an emphasis on option 2; staff would determine if the City could implement option 3 on a pilot basis using existing funding. Mr. Meisner reiterated the need for a central complaint telephone number. 2.Work Session: Parking Program Review and Policy Discussion Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer introduced the topic. He reminded the council of past statistics he had shared about the efficiency of development in the core. He compared Broadway Place to other recent developments as an example of that efficiency. Mr. Farmer said that as the City contemplated nodal development, it had an opportunity to provide some higher density development opportunities to offset some of the lower density development the community had experienced. Mr. Farmer referred the council to an article in the packet by Erik Ferguson entitled Transportation Demand Management: Planning, Development, and Implementation. He asked the council to think of the Traffic Management Association (TMA) approach as it heard the staff presentation. Mr. Farmer noted the presence of Planning and Development Department staff Lew Bowers, Scott Luell, and Jerry Gill. Scott Luell, Planning and Development Department, provided an overview of the City's current parking program and program budget status. He asked the council to affirm the staff recommendation regarding shod-term measures intended to balance the program funds and to provide direction on long-term measures to provide financial stability to the funds. Mr. Luell anticipated a more thorough discussion following the completion of the downtown visioning process. Mr. Luell noted the City Manager's recommendations to eliminate the bulk monthly sales program, to increase monthly and event parking rates, and to implement a three percent, across- the-board administrative reduction. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Fart asked if the working ending fund balance was turned over to the General Fund. Mr. Luell said that the working ending fund balance stayed within the Parking Enterprise Fund; he estimated the balance to be $2.5 million at the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Fart asked if the balance was growing. Mr. Luell said that it had in past years, but because the program was now on an operating basis and because of long-term maintenance demands, the balance would fall. Mr. Fart asked if the Parking Funds contributed dollars to the General Fund outside the in-lieu of street parking payments. Mr. Luell said that the Parking Funds paid a Central Service Allocation (CSA) of about $250,000 to the General Fund. Mr. Farr asked if the Parking Fund was subsidizing the General Fund. Mr. Johnson said that to the degree that the $900,000 in contributions to the General Fund was the council's to allocate as it wished. He confirmed, in response to statement from Mr. Fart, that the anticipated Parking Fund deficits could be decreased by a smaller contribution to the General Fund. Mr. Fart said he was not interested in eliminating the City bus pass program for employees; if the City was soliciting the participation of businesses in the program it made no sense to drop the City's program. Mr. Farmer observed that was one area in which the City was operating as a TMA, adding that if the City did not have such a program it would be asking for a TMA to be formed. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr about the neighborhood permit program, Mr. Luell cited the University area as an area in the community where residents were unable to easily find parking on their block because of heavy use of the area. The City had developed a parking system that limited parking for nonresidents and permitted long-term on-street parking for residents. The City was implementing the program on a block-by-block basis for any group of property owners requesting it. Mr. Farmer observed that such programs were popular nationwide. There were many cities who choose to make the program operate on a "pay-as-you- go" basis. Eugene had not done so, and essentially the fund subsidized the program. Mr. Farr thought it would be self-defeating to eliminate the program. Mr. Fart suggested that the discussion was actually one of how to continue to subsidize the General Fund with Parking Funds at the current level and still maintain other programs that implement transportation demand management. Mr. Fart said that parking in Eugene was a good value based on the information from other cities. He believed the council needed to discuss how Eugene could increase revenues while continuing to provide that good value. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the background materials. He raised a broader issue of parking outside downtown and indicated his desire for a more comprehensive discussion of approaches such as taxes on surface parking, fees when a development provided more than the minimum number of surface parking spaces, etc. He called on staff to develop some specific proposals around the topic for the council to discuss. Mr. Kelly wanted downtown to thrive, but did not think the City could act in downtown in isolation in terms of competition with peripheral businesses. Regarding the possibility of additional structured parking downtown, Mr. Kelly said he was not interested in more publicly owned structures downtown, particularly given the debt service associated with such projects. He wanted the City to work with private developers to provide structured private parking. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said he would like to see more areas of private/public cooperation in parking, and cited Portland's Smart Park Program as an example. Both private and public structures had uniform signage and fliers were produced pointing consumers to the garages. He suggested the City work with Downtown Eugene, Inc., on a map and flier regarding downtown parking. Mr. Kelly said that he did not think the public was aware of all the parking facilities downtown, citing the public parking in Broadway Place as an example. Mr. Meisner thought the employee bus program was great. He asked if the City automatically bought a bus pass for every employee, or for any employee at request. Mr. Farmer said that the City did not buy a bus pass for every person. If the City bought a pass for every employee, the amount budgeted would be more. Mr. Meisner questioned the amount the City would spend if it bought individual bus passes for those employees who actually used the bus. Referring to the monthly parking program, Mr. Meisner said that the rates seemed arbitrarily Iow in comparison to other cities and he hoped the staff examined those rates. He added that an increase in parking rates might drive some to park in nearby inner city neighborhoods, and the City might have to consider extending the neighborhood parking programs into those areas. Mr. Meisner was disappointed that the focus of the agenda topic was on downtown parking in isolation of other related topics. He said that there was an assumption that structured parking downtown was needed to compete with suburban development, but the only solution offered was public development of downtown parking without examination of what was permitted in other parts of the community and the potential of private development. He said the City allowed 5th Street Market to expand and reduce parking; subsequently, market representatives, through the North End Scoping Group process, requested that the City provide structured parking. Mr. Meisner called for a more comprehensive examination of the issues. Mr. Rayor said that he would like to eliminate the bulk parking contracts when they expire. He believed that it was unfair smaller companies could not secure such contracts. Mr. Rayor asked for information on how many people worked in the Parcade and Overpark and the percentage that parked in those structures. Mr. Rayor said that the City had priced parking to the degree where it was not economical for a private party to build parking. In addition, the exclusion zone conflicted with the Central Eugene Parking and Traffic Circulation Study, which called for the provision of adequate parking for new major development and redevelopment. Mr. Rayor did not think that rates could be raised drastically, but they could be raised to the degree they covered the costs of the program. Mr. Rayor wanted a six-year forecast of the parking fund that included the $1.8 million in repairs called out in Attachment H. He pointed out the attachment called for expenditures of $1.5 million over two years, and $1.8 million over ten years. He said that did not include the costs of seismic retrofitting. He also doubted the accuracy of the small percentage increase attributed to the costs of seismic retrofitting. Mr. Lee was looking to the Ad Hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning for more direction regarding the long-term future of downtown parking. Ms. Nathanson asked if the costs of building underground parking structures in Eugene was greater than in other communities because of water table issues and the presence of bedrock. Mr. Farmer said that the lesser problem was bedrock; the water table limited construction to a MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 6 Work Session much greater degree. Ms. Nathanson observed that underground parking structures were a way to use land more efficiently and conceal the parking. Ms. Nathanson said that she frequently heard complaints about tickets issued in error in private parking lots and wanted to have more discussion about that issue at some time. She suggested that problem could discourage people from using structured parking. Ms. Nathanson said that the council's discussion was not just about budget, but about urban form, the quality of life, the health of downtown, and the attractiveness of downtown. She pointed out that the City had spent more to ensure that Pearl Street Garage was attractive, acceptable, and fit into a downtown the community was proud of. Ms. Nathanson referred to the costs of building a new parking structure and asked if that assumed no other revenue. Mr. Luell said yes. Ms. Nathanson suggested the estimate represented a worst-case scenario because commercial facilities would reduce those costs. Mr. Luell concurred. Ms. Taylor asked if it was true that Symantec employees and Broadway Place tenants would consume all the available parking in the Broadway Place parking garage. Mr. Farmer said no. There was still additional parking available for the public. Ms. Taylor wanted the council to be conscious of the effects of what it did downtown. She noted that the end of the free parking program seemed to coincide with the closure of retail stores in downtown. She said that the "playing field" between downtown and the periphery needed to be equalized if retail was to succeed in downtown. She wished the City could reinstate the free parking program. Ms. Taylor was opposed to raising the fee for event parking because it would make it more difficult for people with limited means to come downtown to special events. She supported the elimination of bulk sales as proposed. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the free downtown parking program was not free except to the end user. Ms. Taylor opposed private garage facilities because of the high number of constituent complaints she received about enforcement in private lots. Mr. Pap~ said that parking was a nonessential service the City chose to provide to people patronizing downtown. He agreed with other councilors that the monthly rates should be higher. He did not think that free parking correlated to more customers downtown, adding if the downtown had quality retail stores in quality buildings people would get there through any means they can. He favored the shod-term recommendations and appreciated that the downtown visioning process would include the input of affected businesses. He wanted the City to create some disincentives for parking and transportation demand management through appropriate pricing of downtown parking. Mr. Pap~ endorsed exploration of the sale of City parking structures. Mayor Torrey said he hoped the City was looking at creative solutions to parking downtown. He noted plans for Peace Health to expand and said that would exacerbate the problem of parking MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 7 Work Session supply in that area. He pointed out that the Autzen Stadium parking lot was unused during weekdays and suggested the possibility of establishing a shuttle between downtown and the parking lot to carry downtown employees back and forth. That would be cheaper than a parking structure. Mr. Kelly agreed with the staff recommendation to eliminate the bulk permits and with Mr. Rayor's suggestion that the contracts for bulk permits be eliminated as they expire. He agreed with Ms. Taylor about the proposed increase in event parking. He thought it too costly and pointed out that transit was not a good alternative for venues such as the Hult Center, which was poorly served by transit in the late evening. He thought the City should be looking at parking rates, including hourly, daily, and monthly rates, for additional revenue. However, he did not think they could be raised by too much given the tension between peripheral development and the downtown. Referring to the letter in the meeting packet from Diamond Parking proposing that Diamond contract with the City for on-street parking enforcement services and fine collection, Mr. Kelly said he had received dozens of complaints from constituents about enforcement in Diamond lots and the way Diamond staff treated customers. He did not think the City wanted to be associated with the image Diamond had in the community. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the costs of the neighborhood permit program, Mr. Luell attributed the bulk of those costs to enforcement and the costs of maintaining signs. Mr. Kelly suggested the potential of greater use of automation in parking garages using mag stripe tickets. Mr. Kelly said he would like to see City staff to explore the potential of diagonal parking. He suggested that it would both increase the parking supply and have the additional beneficial effect of traffic calming. Mr. Kelly said that until downtown was economically healthier, he was hesitant to drop the first hour free and Saturday free parking. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Rayor about the need to eliminate the bulk parking contracts. He wanted to increase the monthly permit parking fee more than was proposed, saying that $26 monthly was a bargain in any community. He had reservations about increasing the costs of event parking and agreed with Mr. Kelly about the first hour free and Saturday free parking. Mr. Meisner said that if increased parking prices caused downtown employees to commit to use of transit, he supported such an approach. Mr. Meisner called for a more comprehensive look at parking throughout the community, suggesting that Land Use Code Update could be a vehicle for that examination. He wanted to eliminate the community mind set that the City was responsible for providing parking in downtown. Ms. Taylor did not think Eugene should be compared to Portland as the two cities were not comparable in size and Portland had much better bus and light rail service. She suggested diagonal parking on 6th and 7th avenues would provide both more parking and would calm traffic. Ms. Taylor asked if small business owners downtown were asked their opinion of parking. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Farmer said that small business owners were on the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning, participated in the Downtown Summit, and were represented on the Downtown Eugene, Inc., board. Ms. Taylor suggested that those businesses were being hurt by the lack of parking, and asked if the businesses had been surveyed. Mr. Farmer said that no systematic surveys had been conducted. Ms. Taylor suggested that such a survey might be a good idea. Ms. Taylor asked if Symantec was paying the full cost of parking. Mr. Luell said that Symantec was paying the market rate less the bulk discount. Ms. Taylor asked how Symantec could be considered to be encouraging the use of alternate modes given the amount of parking it was providing for its employees. Mr. Luell said that Symantec encouraged employees to use alternative modes in several ways, including participation in Lane Transit District's employee bus pass program. He was unsure how many parking spaces Symantec was using. Mr. Farmer noted that when a company buys a certain number of permits, it did not use all the spaces paid for every day, so the City could oversell the spaces to some degree. Mr. Rayor clarified that no other city surveyed by the City had bulk parking; the City's rates were among the lowest of communities surveyed. He did not want to raise the price of event parking, and liked the concept of diagonal parking in downtown to increase the number of spaces. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Luell said that the bulk discount ranged from 5 to 20 percent depending on the number of spaces purchased. Mr. Rayor did not think it was a proper pricing strategy to charge less for more use. Mayor Torrey did not want the council to assume that the City could install diagonal parking on 6th and 7th avenues without permission from the State and federal governments. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was a correlation between the cost of parking and where retail customers chose to shop. Mr. Farmer was unaware of any definitive study on the topic. He said that it had been shown empirically that parking turnover and parking location was vital to retail success. There was also evidence that meters encourage parking turnover. Mr. Pap~ was unsure of his position on the first hour free program and Saturday free program and looked for more input from the downtown visioning effort. Mr. Farmer noted that staff was attempting to determine who used the program. He said that many visitors to the Saturday Market and Farmers Market used the parking structures. Ms. Taylor noted the connection between those events and free parking, and pointed out that downtown was bustling during those hours. Mr. Kelly observed that Austin, Texas was paying downtown employees not to drive to work because that city found it to be significantly cheaper than building structured parking. He asked staff to look into that situation. Mr. Johnson thanked staff for its comprehensive presentation on the topic. He said that he did not want the City to lose of the concept of downtown as the "mother node" and a growth management tool. He suggested that increasing the costs of parking significantly could be at odds with other growth management policies encouraging growth and activity downtown. Mr. Johnson said that he would work with Mr. Farmer to attempt to find the center of the council and return with some proposals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Farmer said that there was a love-hate relationship with publicly provided parking. If the City was interested in growth management it wanted to encourage development downtown, where the best opportunities for alternative modes exist. He believed that many people would continue to come downtown by car, and the council needed to find a strategy that gets it closer to its ideal, rather than attempting to realize its ideal immediately. Mr. Farmer said that staff would examine the more comprehensive picture of parking. He was not aware of any community that had assessed a parking tax communitywide. On the subject of the market for parking, he suggested that no one actually knew what the market for parking was. The cost of construction and debt service did not represent the market, because a market was a willing buyer and willing seller. In the current economy, no one was going to pay $150 to $180 to park in downtown Eugene, so the market argued against the construction of garages supported by parking revenues alone. Mr. Farmer said that staff would return with some credible development pro formas to show the council how parking does and does not work downtown and may or may not work into the future. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to prepare an ordinance to eliminate the cap on monthly parking and to bring back a proposal for council approval. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the bulk contracts, Mr. Johnson said that staff would present the option of eliminating the program to the council. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 8, 2000 Page 10 Work Session