CC Minutes - 06/14/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

facility. He said that it was an industry assumption that facilities such as the Cuthbert would make money from ancillary revenues, such as food concessions and parking. The cost of bringing in artists was so expensive that promoters do not want to share the gate. Ms. Taylor suggested that the City would make more in beverage concessions because people with picnics would come earlier and possibly drink more beverages. She believed that publicity about the council's decision would reach those who had already purchased tickets. Mr. Johnson said that one of the implications of the motion was that there would be a need for more staffto move people through the lines and cut down on waiting times, a cost was which was generally passed on to the promoters. Ms. Nathanson was uncomfortable changing the policy at this point because it represented "a change in the rules in the middle of the game" and because of contract issues involved. Mr. Scheeland noted that the City's Request for Proposal for vendors had expressly stated that no picnics were to be allowed. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about that fact. She suggested that it was most appropriate to refer the issue to the department advisory committee before making the change. Ms. Nathanson added that she understood that there was also an issue of capacity as people spread their picnics out, reducing the number of people who could attend an event. Mr. Johnson said that the City could give 30-day notice about the change in policy to the vendors, adding it was less a legal problem than a relationship problem. Ms. Niles added that many of the issues related to the Cuthbert were about relationships. City staff worked hard to develop relationships with the promoters, most of whom were from outside the area. The commercial promoters bring talent to the facility to make money. Increasing the capacity of the facility allowed the promoters to generate more revenue. Ms. Niles said that from her years of observation, she learned that people carrying in food took up a significant amount of space in the facility. There was also a conflict at the gates from resolving what constituted a glass container: was it a mayonnaise j ar? A jelly j ar? She said that it could become unpleasant. She believed that precluding picnics led to more smooth operations the previous year. Ms. Niles said there had been no unfavorable comments from promoters and she had heard only two comments from patrons concerning the policy change this year. Ms. Nathanson said that the amphitheater felt like a local facility to her, and she was glad it was not highly commercialized. She said that at that level, it felt right to allow picnics. On the other hand, the City had tried hard to make the facility a successful venue from a financial point of view, and she asked how the facility could be made to be financially successful yet still feel like the community's amphitheater. Mr. Kelly said that it was true the City operated in a fiscal environment and needed to balance the budget. He looked to the department advisory committee for innovative ideas to address the facility's financial status in the long-term However, he believed the Cuthbert Amphitheater was about fulfilling the council's goal for an accessible and thriving culture. He believed the Cuthbert was an experience, and part of that experience was the patron's ability to carry in food. Mr. Kelly said that the lines were a challenge but he believed the issue could be resolved. Regarding the contract issue, he said he was satisfied by Mr. Johnson's statement regarding the 3 O-day notice to vendors. Mr. Meisner was not persuaded by the arguments against the motion. He acknowledged Ms. Niles' comments about relationships but pointed out that the City also had a relationship with its citizens. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m.