Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Continuing the discussion of the testimony, Mr. Farah said concern was <br />expressed about the 25 to 30 percent modal split goal, the lack of a specific <br />mention of incubator industries as a use, the coordination of the proposed <br />Metro Plan amendment, and an extension of the University's ban on classified <br />research. Mr. Farah said the City cannot determine what is classified <br />research. Much proprietary research is also secret. <br /> <br />Ms. Ehrman wondered what the City is obligated to do when it adopts the <br />study. She wondered if the Riverfront projects will have priority over <br />existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. Mr. Gleason responded <br />that all Riverfront projects will have to be in the CIP. Projects are often <br />funded by a loan from the county and/or Bancroft bonds or a tax increment <br />district. The council will have to develop special funding that is needed. <br /> <br />Responding to a comment of Mr. Holmer, Ms. Wooten said she is concerned about <br />the lack of a regular way for City representatives to meet with officers of <br />the non-profit corporation who were appointed by the University. She wants <br />the City to know what is going on and be able to take part in dialogues. She <br />would like to have a City representative on the Board of Directors of the <br />non-profit corporation. The City Attorney indicated such an arrangement would <br />be legal. <br /> <br />Mr. Hansen wondered why the University, which is the land owner, would want a <br />City representative on the Board of Directors. <br /> <br />The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />(Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) <br /> <br />1764C <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council <br /> <br />June 10, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />