CC MInutes - 12/11/00 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. Clarify that the option chosen for the transit site was one that did not impede the City's right or ability to control the use of Leo Harris Parkway for parking and collection of maximum revenue. D. Establish a park monitoring program which was consistent with the goals of the East Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee. Regarding Item B of the motion, Councilor Meisner said that the revenue would not be enough to pay for restoration of lots 8 and 9 as well as offsetting the loss of revenue to WISTEC. He asked for a clarification of priorities. City Manager Johnson noted that there was, currently, no money being charged for parking on Leo Harris Parkway. Councilor Bettman said that the problems with options 1, 2, and 5 were that they all obscured parking on Leo Harris Parkway and used it for other uses. She commented that the University was letting its largest donors utilize that parking as a benefit. She said that Leo Harris Parkway was a City facility and that the City should benefit from the parking on that facility. She said that the City could dictate how the revenue from the parking was allocated. Councilor Kelly reiterated that the motion was not intended to go into precise detail on how any revenue was spent. He suggested a friendly amendment that stated that the revenue from parking on the Leo Harris Parkway would be used toward offsetting..., etc. The friendly amendment was accepted by Councilor Bettman. In response to a question from Councilor Nathanson regarding whether continued discussion was in order, City Manager Johnson said that the item was postponed and the council was now providing guidance to staff. Councilor Pap~ raised concern over the precedent set by including WISTEC in any of the motions. He said that its interests had already been discussed at length at prior meetings. City Manager Johnson reiterated that there had never been any charge for parking on Leo Harris Parkway. He asked for a definition of market rate. Councilor Bettman said there was precedent in the current price of paid parking in other locations as well as the rate that WISTEC was charging during game days. She said that the City should be getting whatever price the market would bear. Councilor Rayor raised concern over Item A of the motion. He said that the existing Intergovernmental agreement between the University and the City tied up lots 8 and 9 until 2007. Councilor Rayor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by deleting Item A. Councilor Bettman noted that council had been repeatedly told that a new IGA would supercede the old IGA. She said that the council could make the University's exemption be contingent on her ideas being in the new IGA. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 17 Regular Meeting