08/24/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-', Mr. Nicholson clarified he was not opposed to the sites under consideration. . He suggested that the community consider rethinking how it could spend the money to achieve a real model shift. He believed that for the cost of the public subsidy the community could design a system that was more convenient and attracted more riders than currently used the bus. Ms. Hocken asked the council to begin to think about what type of information it needed and the type of discussion required so that it was prepared to answer the district if it sought an option on the McDonald Theater property. Mr. Brandt said he did not want to spend money on an environmental assessment without knowing the council's decision regarding the option. Mr. Miller said that it appeared that the board was desirous of more than the right of first refusal. He said that the key to the discussion was some assurance that the site would be available if it was selected by the board. Mr. Boles reiterated that the council needed a response to the questions it had submitted to the district at the meeting of June 24. He referred the board members to the agenda item summary, which included the council's questions. Mr. Nicholson suggested that the City consider making a contingent commitment to selling the site that depended upon the district's response to the council's questions. e Mr. Gleason summarized the discussion. He suggested that staff develop a process to address the multiplicity of issues for the council to consider. Ms. Ehrman maintained that the parking issue was one for the council to resolve. She suggested that the council examine parking issues related to the top two sites. Mr. Boles agreed, and said the council had instructed City staff to work with LTD staff on those issues two months previous. Mr. Gleason said that staff recommends a separate study of the integration of the shuttle issue and the transit station. Mr. Boles said that the shuttle issue was not independent of the parking issue. He said that the two issues must be considered in an integrated fashion. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Billings said that the board would make a decision on the preferred site and alternative site on September 19. Mr. Nicholson favored developing contingent conditions prior to the board's site selection. Mr. Gleason said that the processes could be concurrent. After the preferred site is selected by the board, staff could discuss with the council under what conditions it would be willing to sell the site. That would avoid the unnecessary expenditure of dollars examining the site. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 24, 1992 Page 5 5:30 p.m.