CC Minutes - 01/22/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to a call for a summary from Councilor Nathanson, City Manager Johnson said that the City owned Leo Harris Parkway, the asphalt parking lot, and lots 8 and 9. He said that the asphalt parking lot under Option 1 (the main motion) would be used for the queuing of people using Lane Transit District services during games with buses being parked on Leo Harris Parkway. He went on to say that the 1997 intergovernmental agreement would need to be amended if Councilor Bettman's amendments were passed; in order for the University to get Option 1, the City would need to retain control of all of the parking and rate- setting on Leo Harris Parkway and lots 8 and 9. He said that the City Council would have to determine where the revenue would go if the amendment passed. Councilor Taylor noted that the amendment was just the City establishing control of its property. In response to a question from Councilor Meisner regarding foreseeable difficulties in reworking intergovernmental agreements with the University of Oregon, City Manager Johnson said that according to the proposed council action, Option 1 was contingent on amending those agreements and that was a large incentive to come to an agreement. Councilor Pap~ raised concern that the council was not looking in the context that was agreed upon. He said that the 1997 Intergovernmental Agreement had concessions on both sides. Mr. Klein said, in terms of the parking agreement, his opinion was that at the same time that the University got the parking for game days, the City used the parking for events at the park or the Cuthbert Amphitheater. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding her intent for her first amendment, Councilor Bettman said that it was: 1. To make sure that the City had control over City property. 2. To keep WISTEC alive. 3. To ensure the City would get revenue from Leo Harris Parkway. 4. To get the University out of lots 8 and 9 by the end of 2006. The amendment to the main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Pap~ and Farr voting in opposition. Amendments 2 and 3 Councilor Kelly noted that the current University offer on WISTEC compensation was $222,947 dispersed yearly until 2007. He said that the difference between the amendment amount of $260,000 and the University's offer should be viewed in the context of an $80 million stadium expansion. He opined that it was a small matter for the University. He urged support for the amendment. Councilor Bettman said that her intention was to come up with an amount that everyone could live with. She added that the extra amount would help keep WISTEC afloat long enough to find other funding. She reiterated that WISTEC was an asset to the area and stressed the importance of keeping the facility open. Councilor Meisner said that he would not support the amendments because the issues were separate and WISTEC needed to find its own support. He could not agree with the second part of the amendment that if the University declined the agreement then they would choose the second, third, or fourth options. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 22, 2001 Page 11 Regular Meeting