Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Nathanson regarding WISTEC's philosophical opposition <br />to the Request for Proposals approach Mr. Johnson suggested for West Alton Baker Park, Mr. Johnson said <br />that historically the entire park had been free for parking on game days. WISTEC believed if the parking had <br />been free it should remain free. He indicated he would write a memorandum describing what was discussed <br />and WISTEC could make it own response to the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson believed that Autzen Stadium was somewhat small for a stadium and asked how it compared <br />in size to stadiums in other cities in terms of its location and parking availability. Mr. Johnson said that <br />stadiums varied as to size and location. Many were in downtown locations with much smaller footprints and <br />little parking, while others were in suburban location with lots of parking. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lowe indicated he would investigate whether restriping <br />would add to efficiencies in parking. <br /> <br />Regarding Ms. Bettman's suggestion that the University's position was based on an attempt to minimize its <br />expenditures, Ms. Nathanson said that she believed the University was primarily concerned about safety and <br />congestion given the large number of people who traveled to the stadium for games and special events. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commended the University for attempting to develop a TDM solution and reduce the number of <br />cars coming to the stadium. He also appreciated the efforts the City Manager made in attempting to resolve <br />the issues involved with WISTEC. He said in general, the concept outline was a good one and he appreciated <br />staf?s efforts to put "teeth" in the TDM program, in particular noting the addition of Section 7.4, which <br />indicated that the University's failure to comply with the conditions of the IGA could result in revocation of <br />the TDM plan and force the University to comply with the code. <br /> <br />Regarding the grassed area used for parking, Mr. Meisner questioned whether it was actually allowed. He <br />thought it occurred contrary to the terms of the lease. He also did not think the lease permitted sale of the use <br />of City-owned parking without the City's permission. At the same time, he wanted to protect WISTEC, <br />which was not the same as holding it harmless or granting it everything it wanted. Mr. Meisner endorsed the <br />direction the City was taking and said that preliminarily, Option 1 seemed most reasonable if the City wanted <br />TDM to work for the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ commended the University and staff for the work that had been done on the IGA. He agreed with <br />Ms. Nathanson that the University was not merely focused on reducing expenses. He said that after <br />consideration, it appeared that Option 1 seemed to be the option that worked best for all involved. Mr. <br />Johnson clarified that the TDM report indicated that all the options worked, but some worked better than <br />others. He noted that Andy Vobora of Lane Transit District (LTD) indicated a preference for Option 1. He <br />thought if it worked best for LTD, it was more likely that the transit service would be used. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ believed that the issue of WISTEC should be considered separately from the parking issue. He said <br />that the organization could be located somewhere else and had enjoyed a revenue windfall by taking <br />advantage of City-owned property at its current location. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart commended Mr. Johnson's work to satisfy both the needs of the City and University. He believed <br />that WISTEC should be protected and had the same chance of remaining viable as it had prior to the <br />expansion. He said he had not seen any spreadsheets showing actual revenues received by WISTEC as <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />