CC Minutes - 02/22/99 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Research Park development plan, and that study be approved by the Urban Renewal Agency before proposed improvements occur. Mr. Meisner said that planning studies cost money, and he asked who would pay for the study called for by Mr. Rayor. He said that such a study would be a sizeable investment, and could easily consume one-quarter of what was proposed in capital improvements. He was unable to support the motion as stated. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Meisner and suggested that staff return to the council on March 17 with information about what such a study would entail and what it would cost. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the amendment by deleting all text after "$800,000". Mr. Kelly said he shared Mr. Meisner's concerns but believed that there must be some amount of operating funding in the Urban Renewal Agency budget to do some level of planning. He proposed the following text: "Direct staff to work with council and the University to review the University's Review Committee conclusions and determine their implications for the City's participation in the Riverfront Research Park." Mr. Johnson said that there were no operating dollars available to undertake such a planning study in the current fiscal year. He said that the council could allocate funding for that purpose during the budget review. He believed the council's intent was clear, and pointed out that the Riverfront Research Park would be discussed again on March 17. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to postpone the issue until the March 17 meeting. He noted that the two absent councilors were also interested in the issue. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council vote now and consider further amendments at a later date. Ms. Nathanson did not want to give the public the impression the City was no longer going to participate in the Riverfront Research Park. She believed that the council had reached this point because of concern about development north of the railroad tracks. She asked, "what's the rush?" Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the ClP was merely a planning document to help in budget preparation. She questioned why the ClP had to be adopted before March 17, and suggested the council wait a few weeks to "get it right." Mr. Lee called the question. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion to call the question passed unanimously, 6:0. The motion to amend the amendment passed unanimously, 6:0. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey said that the vote should not be perceived by the public as acceptance or rejection of the development in the Riverfront Research Park, and no councilor should forget that the Riverfront Research Park was not the only thing in the district, which included everything along the river east of the Ferry Street Bridge. The City may have to do some planning contingent on what occurred with AgriPac. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 11 7:30 p.m.