CC Minutes - 03/17/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Referring to page 188 of the meeting packet, Mr. Meisner wondered if there was a plan to repay the University for its operational and capital investment in the park. Staff indicated there was a distinction made between infrastructure and other expenses. Mr. Meisner called attention to a discrepancy in figures in A. 1. and A.4 and asked staff to account for the $70,000. Mr. Kelly said it was for bonded debt, which would lower the average homeowner's property tax about $1 annually. Addressing a follow-up question from Mr. Meisner, Tom Dyke, University of Oregon, said intellectual property of faculty are distributed to the faculty member, the work unit where the intellectual property was developed, and to the University in equal amounts (in licensing fees, equity and various other arrangements). Mr. Meisner wondered if Option 3 could be modified by extending the park planning effort to the entire area (including that outside the research park). City Attorney Glenn Klein said the council could direct such a project. Mr. Meisner said Option 4 erroneously tied the termination of the Riverfront Urban Renewal District with termination of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Klein confirmed that terminating the agreement would not necessitate terminating the renewal district. Mayor Torrey explained the University's request that the council provide urban renewal funds to conduct a study of the research park as outlined in Option 2, but deleting the phrase after "City." In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mayor Torrey explained that the University conducted an extensive study of the research park with a study group that recommended proceeding with a planning process, with funding from urban renewal (Option 2). Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to adopt Option 2: to undertake a joint effort with the University of Oregon in which the Riverfront Design Advisory Committee and the Riverfront Commission are charged to analyze the Riverfront Review Committee's recommendations and make refinement recommendations to the University of Oregon and City on appropriate density, setbacks, open space, timing, and design. Mr. Kelly said he favored a continued partnership with the University to conduct the study provided it included representation from citizens interested in preservation and prohibited capital expenditures before the report was presented to the council. He opined that the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement could be revisited without jeopardizing the integrity and value of the partnership. He said he believed the goals of the research park and preservation of land were consistent. Mr. Farr acknowledged that the area will change whether the City has any say. He expressed support for the motion as it allowed for the City's input to the greatest extent. Ms. Nathanson noted that the council's action had already deleted the item from the budget via the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and there was no need to do anything else. She said it was prudent and fine to review intergovernmental agreements but the trouble was that the discussion was initially framed for council as breaking the agreement. Mr. Rayor said he wished to reserve the right to review the agreement, adding that he disagreed that the funding was insignificant taken over the ten years. He noted that the City owned land contiguous to the park that appeared to be underutilized that would benefit from some review in the broader context. Mr. Rayor said he could support Option 2 if it contained language offering some protection to the north side of the tracks. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 17, 1999 Page 5 11:30 a.m.