Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1984 Meeting ,. MINUTES - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber June 25, 1984 7:35 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Debra Ehrman, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Betty Smith. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue. The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. City Council Annual Goals Session Assistant City Manager David Whitlow announced that the dates of October 5 and 6, 1984, had been selected for the City Council Annual Goals Session. He stated that these were the only dates that all councilors could attend. - B. Appointment of Public Works Director Mr. Whitlow announced that the City Manager had appointed Christine Andersen as the new Director of Public Works. He stated that she had been working for Lane County for several years in various capacities, the latest of which was as County Engineer, and that she had also worked for the City of Eugene. He said she will assume her position with the City on July 23. C. Appoi ntments: Joint Private Industry Councils Merger Policy Committee Mayor Keller stated that he had appointed himself and Councilor Ball to serve on the Joint Private Industry Councils Merger Policy Committee. Since,'however, he will be unable to attend their first meeting on June 27, he has asked Councilor Obie to attend that meeting on his behalf. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. City of Eugene FY85 Budget (memo, ordinance distributed) Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Fi nance Director Warren Wong presented the staff report, stating that the public hearing will include testimony on the City Budget and the use of federal and state revenue sharing funds. He added that the second public hearing with the City Council acting as the Urban Renewal Agency will include testimony on the Eugene Renewal Agency budget. Mr. Wong stated that the Budget Committee spent six - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 1 meetings and two public hearings in reviewing the FY85 Executive Budget Recommen- dations, during which time the budget was modified. He explained that the . budget basically provided for the continuation of eXisting services into the next fiscal year with few restorations or service system enhancements. He added that there were no new revenue sources in the budget and that it continued the property tax support after the expiration of the Eugene Plan, resulting in a levy of approximately $22.6 million and a debt service levy of $3.6 million. This will result in a property tax rate of $9.78 per $1,000 of assessed property value--an increase of $.23 over the current year. Mr. Wong stated that the proposed budget included the issuance of Tax Anticipations Notes (TANs) as a means to fund the cash flow requirements of the first six months of the General Fund. He said staff will request authorization to proceed with the TANs issuance on June 27. Referring to his June 20, 1984, memorandum to the City Council, Mr. Wong reviewed the key issues included in the proposed budget. He explained that the proposed budget provided for a 4 percent increase in the Operating Budget and a 9 percent increase in the Capital Budget--an overall increase of 4.3 percent. He added that the council will take action on the appropriation act to certify the property tax levy at its June 27 meeting. The public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the proposed budget: Carroll D. Fentress, 3883 Blanton Road, stated that he had recently toured the east coast and found that the cities visited had healthy economies and had relatively low real estate taxes combined with sales taxes ranging from five to ten percent. He stated that he heard no complaints about the sales taxes during his trip. Mr. Fentress stated that the trip reaffirmed his family's decision to e relocate to Eugene. He urged the council to approve the FY85 Budget as recom- mended to the council by the Budget Committee, including the Hult Center budget items. Jennifer King, 1870 East 27th Avenue, a member of the Performing Arts Commission, stated that the commission supported the proposed FY85 Budget. She stated that the Hult Center was fundamental to Eugene's economic development, drawing both regional and national attention and providing cultural opportunities for the area citizens. Ms. King said it had been a good year for the center, adding that several changes had been made following the recommendations of the Alexander Grant and Company study. She added that the Hult Center Task Force had also developed recommendations for funding which would allow the public to provide input into that process. She briefly reviewed some statistics on the Hult Center as developed by the Support Hult Center Organization (SHO), stating that attendance at Hult Center events was approximately 500,000 as of May 31 and that approximately $15 million had been spent in the local economy as a result of the Hult Center. She said that everyone involved was looking forward to the numerous summer activities, including the Bach Festival and the International Society of Music Educators Conference. Ms. King stated that the commission has developed a work plan and was considering the recommenations of the Grant study. Sue Keene, 3260 Storey Boulevard, representing Support Hult Center Organization (SHOJ, stated that she had previously forwarded a letter including a fact sheet to the council addressing certain issues. She stated that the figures mentioned e June 25, 1984 Page 2 MINUTES--Eugene City Council by Ms. King were possibly low, stating that SHO had used a small multiplier in - developing the figures. She felt that the Hult Center was a community asset, attracting tourists and businesses to the area, being a focal point for local artists, and generating revenue for the local economy. She stated that SHO supported the acceptance of the FY85 Budget and agreed with the comment of Andrew Porter of the New Yorker magazine in that Eugene was lucky to have the Hult Center. W. H. Byrd, 2293 Birch Lane, stated that he was a self-employed builder and had been a taxpayer for 30 years. He stated that he also volunteered as a tour guide in the Hult Center. He encouraged the council to approve the FY85 Budget and its funding for the center. Mr. Byrd stated that he had guided numerous groups through the Hult Center, including tourists from Eugene's sister city of Kakegawa and a group from International Mobility. He stated that all the groups were greatly impressed by the facility and were now ambassadors for the City of Eugene. Speaking in opposition to the proposed budget: Mary Bentsen, 956 West 16th Avenue, stated that she would not complain about the Hult Center comments previously made but felt that the center was the focal point of an issue which may divide the city. Referring to the Alexander Grant and Company study, she stated that the council had addressed some of the recommen- dations such as ticketing and staffing, but she asked v/hy it had not addressed the long-range issues involving the Performing Arts Commission, the Eugene Arts Foundation, the suggested moratorium on past debts by the local performing artists groups, the room tax to the Hult Center and the Visitors Convention e Bureau, the one-percent restaurant tax, and the distribution of funds. Ms. Bentsen said the community was questioning the fairness of the Hult Center Support while the city was experiencing a recession, particularly in light of service cuts in the areas of the library, pools, and fire protection. She stated that she supported the continued operation of the Hult Center but urged the council to carefully address the funding issue. She felt that the center had become an elitist service because of the high ticket prices. Ms. Bentsen asked why the Hult Center Task Force recommendation regarding a funding proposal had not been instituted and why the Grant study recommendations had not been followed. Regarding the proposed moratorium on the past debts to the Hult Center, she asked how the City would ensure current payments to the center would be made. Andy Thompson, 2910 Ferry Street, stated that he was also concerned with the funding of the Hult Center, adding that he had previously proposed that the center be mothballed. As an alternative, he suggested that the City Council designated new special revenues from the businesses which profit most from the Hult Center activities. Mr. Thompson stated that he was not convinced by the comments regarding the money brought into the local economy by the center, stating that the majority of residents did not receive any of that money. With regard to the support shown by local artists for the center, he felt that such support was a minority opinion. Mr. Thompson agreed with previous testimony that the council was not following through with its promise that the center would be self-sufficient rather than depending on General Fund revenues. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 3 While he recognized that the Hult Center provided many cultural events, he . stated that other events were available at less cost. He stressed that many residents can not affort the ticket costs of the Hult Center; he added that the City should not subsidize those individuals who could afford the tickets. There being no further te~timony, the public hearing was closed. Responding to questions raised during the testimony, Councilor Wooten stated that the Hult Center Task Force had developed a list of issues to be addressed by the Performing Arts Commission and that the commission had already taken steps in the area of management and ticket prices. She said the task force met with the commission to develop a more cooperative relationship in support of the center and local performing arts groups. She added that Ed Smith, the Acting Director of the Performing Arts Center, was negotiating an expeditied payment schedule with the local performing arts groups to repay past debts; she said she understood that all debts had been paid. In response to a comment regarding the loans to the performing arts groups, Councilor Obie stated that the only loans written off were interfund transfers between City departments. He said Mr. Smith was pursuing the collection of the receivables from prior years. He added that the current policy was that groups will not use the center without paying the current portion of their rent. Regarding the room tax issue, Mr. Obie said that the task force had recommended to the City Council that the room tax recommendation of the Grant study be phased in over five years, the task force hoping that the fund would increase over that period to cover any deficit. Responding to the issue of other revenue sources to support the Hult Center, e Councilor Wooten agreed that the council may wish to consider another revenue source in the future to offset any further deficit. She said that she had suggested that the council propose a restaurant tax for voter approval. In response to a question, Mr. Obie stated that the task force did not endorse that program. Mayor Keller stated that the council will take final action on the FY85 Budget on June 27. He thanked those testifying for their input. He hoped that concerns about the Hult Center will diminish in time. He said he did not understand how individuals could not support the center due to the benefits derived by the community. He felt that the $500,000 used to support the center was incidental to the overall operation of the City. He said that the community should be compassionate to the process. He said he was offended with comments regarding the library and the Eugene Celebration. He felt that individuals believing in the community were responsible for the current progress being made. At 8:16 p.m. the meeting of the Eugene City Council was adjourned to a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene. Mayor Keller opened the meeting. B. Urban Renewal Agency--FY85 Tax Allocation Budget (memo, resolution distributed) Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Financial ~irector Warren Wong presented the staff report, explaining that the budget e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 4 was financed by tax increment financing and interest on investments. Expendi- - tures included payment of debt service on parking structures, improvements in the downtown area and the renewal district, and operating expenditures to staff the agency. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Whitlow stated that this item was scheduled for action on June 27. At 8:18 p.m., Mayor Keller adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. C. 10th and Oak Assessment District--Application of Remaining Funds (memo, background information distributed) Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. He noted that the City Attorney.s function will be filled by Robert Thrall and D~vid Jewett. Mayor Keller turned the chair over to Councilor Obie at this time and temporarily left the meeting, having previously stated a potential conflict of interest on the issue. Finance Director Warren Wong presented the staff report, stating that staff was asking for direction from the council on the disposition of the remaining funds. He stated that the financial status of the 10th and Oak Assessment District Fund as of April 30, 1984, was approximately $2.4 million, $900,000 of e which would be used to redeem the outstanding bonds. The net operating revenue amounted to $1.6 million, $900,000 to be rebated to the Downtown Development District Fund and certain DDD property owners, and the balance of the net operating revenue to be used to reduce the assessments owed to the City by the 10th and Oak Assessment property owners. He stated that staff will then equalize the assessments among the property owners, resulting in approximately $300,000 of remaining funds. He added that this figure actually ranged from $150,000 to $500,000 due to the unknown amount of interest earned and any possible legal and administrative costs. While the City has traditionally surplused any excess funds after paying off the bonds, Mr. Wong stated that five options were possible as described in his June 20, 1984, memorandum to the City Council. Having reviewed the 1966 City Council minutes addressing the assessment district, he stated that a commitment had been made to return any excess funds to the property owners; however, he stated that the Eugene Code had not incorporated that commitment into any contractual agreement or bond indentures and therefore no legal mandatory requirement existed. Mr. Wong stated that the Downtown Commis- sion had reviewed the issue on June 12 and had unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt Option 5, that of returning the remaining funds to the 10th and Oak property owners and assessment payers. He said staff had established an optimistic timeline for completion of the process, the first step being to present the net operating revenue and distribution formula issue to the circuit court. He said the City could complete the rebate by December if the court favorably decided on the City.s position. He stressed that staff will not proceed e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 5 r unless it has a definite court ruling, adding that any interest earned during a . process delay would follow the direction preferred by the council. He said the directions made by the council will be presented as a resolution on July 11. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman regarding the interest amount, Mr. Wong stated that the property owners will not receive a dollar-for-dollar refund for what was invested in the Bancroft district; he stated that the difference would be approximately $1.3 million. Councilor asked if the minutes reviewed specified what excess funds would be returned to the property owners. Mr. Wong responded that the notes and minutes indicated that any excess funds in the operation of the district would be returned to the property owners. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Mr. Wong stated that the Eugene Development Department had prepared a list of capital projects amounting to $370,000 to maintain the Overpark facility. The public hearing was opened. Bob Loomis, 3540 Pearl, stated that he had been a chairperson of the Downtown Development Board and had followed the issue over the years. He stated that he was concerned with the final issue of rebating the funds. Referring to the options listed in Mr. Wong's June 20 memorandum, he stated that the property owners had assumed the voluntary assessment to provide the facility to Eugene, thus providing the security required to initiate the Urban Renewal Program. He felt that the recommendations listed in Options 3 and 4 would be met by the revenue realized by the City from the Overpark. With regard to Option 5, he felt that the 1966 council minutes were a verbal commitment by the City to repay the assessment. He stated that the repayment period was to have been 20 years, e not 50 years as stated in the memorandum. He stated that he had presented his major argument at the previous public hearing. Regarding the council's concern for the input from the Downtown Commission, Mr. Loomis stated that the commission had voted unanimously that the funds should be returned to the property owners. Neal Sande, 294 West 11th Avenue, stated that Dr. Loomis had addressed most of his concerns. Referring to the vote of the Downtown Commission, he stated that the commission had also discussed the need for obtaining some positive media coverage as would result from returning the funds to the property owners. Referring to a June 18, 1984, Retister-GUard article concerning a rebate of $2 million made by the Springfie d Utllity Board to 14,028 customers, he hoped that the City could refund the monies to the property owners in the same efficient manner. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman, Mr. Jewett stated that no prece- dent existed for the rebate of the funds. Stating that his staff had reviewed a substantial number of minutes concerning the issue, he explained that the adopted ordinances specified that the net operating revenues were to be returned but did not cover any prepaid assessments or interest accruals. In response to a question regarding the timeline for refunding the monies, Mr. Wong stated that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 6 that any interest will be accredited to wherever directed by the council, less any legal, administrative, or contingency funding. With the passage of the - proposed resolution on July 11, he said the refund could be completed by December 1984 barring any lawsuits. Regarding the commitment made by the previous council, Mr. Jewett said the commitment to rebate the net operating revenue was binding with respect to the revenue accrued to date but not to any future or unaccrued revenues. He felt that the City had no legal obligation to return the excess prepaid assessments and the interest allocated to those funds. Councilor Smith encouraged the council to adopt Option 5, stating that the comments presented to the council and the recommendation of the Downtown Commis- sion merited consideration. Councilor Hansen said he will support the recommen- dation of the Downtown Commission, stating that the council when the assessment district was established had made a commitment to refund the money and that the present council had the opportunity to do so. In response to a question regarding the net operating revenues and the excess prepaid assessments, Mr. Whitlow stated that the $150,000 to $500,000 was the interest on prepaid assessments. He stated that any interest accrued during the disposition of the funds would also be included in the rebate. He stated that it would be difficult to project the interest separate from the net operating revenues. Councilor Wooten stated that she would reluctantly support Option 5 because the funds could be used in the City's process of revitalizing the downtown. She suggested that any interest accrued from this date on be held for the Operation and Maintenance of the Overpark. Councilor Obie stated that the issue involved was from which date the prepaid assessments were to be returned. Mr. Whitlow e stated that Ms. Wooten's suggestion was possible in light of the June 30 audit to be performed. Councilor Ehrman commented that she was concerned that the interest was being accrued on a principal that technically belong to the property owners. She said she would support Option 5, stating that the council must support past commitments to the public. She felt that the ordinance was flawed in that interest was not addressed. Councilor Ball said he would support Option 5 because the Downtown Commission and a former council had given its word that the money was to be rebated although he personnaly felt that the City could use the money. He said he wished that the downtown leaders and the balance of the council were as concerned with the City's word with regard to the Hult Center funding mechanism as with this issue. Councilor Holmer stated that he would also support Option 5. Councilor Obie commented that the City could quickly generate enough revenue from the Overpark to complete the projects as recommended by the Downtown Commission. Councilor Ehrman commented that the City would face prolonged litigation if it did not return the money to the property owners. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the City of Eugene exercise Option 5 as presented in the June 20, 1984, memorandum from staff and return the excess prepaid assessments and net operating revenue to the 10th and Oak property owners and assess- ment payers. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 7 The meeting was recessed at 8:49 p.m. and reconvened at 9:01 p.m. with Mayor Keller reassuming the function of chairing the meeting. e D. Abatement of Nuisance and Unsafe Building at 1398 Willamette Street (memo, resolution distributed) Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Superintendent of Building Inspection Mick Nolte presented the staff report, reviewing the June 20, 1984, memorandum from Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent, to the City Council. He added that staff had received a telephone call from the demolition contractor hired by the property owner stating that he was to proceed with demolition. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, City Attorney Lew Swanson stated that he did not believe that Mr. Holmer had any conflict of interest based on the proximity of the Chamber of Commerce to the subject property. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3863--A resolution concerning abatement of a nuisance and unsafe building at 1398 Willamette Street. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolution. In response to a question by Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Whitlow explained that the owner - still would have 10 days to abate the nuisance. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. E. Appeal of Sign Code Board of Appeals Decision Re: Delta Oaks Shopping Center, 1020 Greenacres Road (memo, background information distributed) Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Sign Code Inspector Barbara McDonald presented the staff report, reviewing the June 19, 1984, Building Division Staff memorandum to the City Manager. She explained that Section 8.635 of the Eugene Sign Code defined an integrated shopping district as one which represented the integrated shopping areas under one management and for which most customers arrived by car but shopped as pedestrians. She said the Sign Code allowed an identity sign large enough to be visible to motorists traveling at 25 to 30 miles per hour, the remainder of the shopping center signs to be wall signs scaled to pedestrian needs. She explained that the sign height and size limitations were based on the vehicle traveling speed; she added that the section did not intend to allow signs addressing the adjacent interstate. Ms. McDonald stated that staff determined that increasing the height limitation would still not permit the identity of the sign to traffic on Beltline Road due to the interchange of the Beltline and Delta Highway. She added that no variances for the height limitation had been allowed within the city and that staff felt that granting the variance would set a precedent. Ms. McDonald stated that staff was recommending that the City Council uphold the decision of the Sign Code Board of Appeals. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 8 In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, Ms. McDonald stated that the petitioners had not presented any analysis indicating that the customers arrived - by Beltline Road or Delta Highway. In response to a question, she explained that staff had estimated that a height of approximately 60 feet would be neces- sary for the sign to be visible from Beltine Road; she said a 3D-foot height limitation was allowed only in the Highway-Oriented Sign Districts. The public hearing was opened. Kevin Jones, 1678 West 7th Avenue, representing the Delta Oaks Shopping Center, stated that the Jones Sign Systems was requesting a height variance of 10 feet for the shopping center identity sign to provide the maximum exposure for that one sign. With an average of 40,000 vehicles traveled on Beltline Road, 6,000 on Delta Highway and only 850 on Greenacres Road, he felt that the majority of the customers to the shopping center would arrive from Beltline Road or Delta Highway, thus justifying the needed variance. He stated that a height of only 20 feet might allow damage to the sign by campers and freight trucks while a 30-foot sign properly located would allow sufficient reaction time to provide motorists on Beltline Road or Delta Highway the opportunity to exit. Mr. Jones added that his company had tested a sample sign three weeks before the appeal date and felt that a 30-foot high sign was visible from Burch's Shoe Fair on Greenpasture Island Road and the eastbound lane of Beltline but was limited in the westbound lane. While he stated that he was reluctant to question the judgement of the Board of Appeals, Councilor Holmer felt that a judgement based on the Highway-Oriented Sign District might be more appropriate than on the Integrated Shopping District. - He said the council could make an exception if 30-foot signs were allowed in the former districts. Councilor Hansen recognized that a review of the Sign Code might be appropriate, but he felt that arbitrarily granting a variance would be unfair to other businesses that might also be having difficulties. He stated that he will not support granting a variance but would suggest that a review be performed. Councilor Obie supported Mr. Hansen's comments, agreeing that a review of the Sign Code was needed but adding that it should not be changed based on an individual case. He encouraged the council to review the ordinance or have the applicant reapply for a highway-oriented sign. Councilor Wooten said she supported the decision of the Board of Appeals, stating that a similar decision had been made on a request by G.I. Joes. Mr. Hansen responded that he was unsure if the applicant could change his application, explaining that the community shopping center might not fall within the Highway-Oriented Sign District language. In response to a request for clarification, Superintendent of Building Inspection Mick Nolte explained that Highway-Oriented Districts were relegated to arterial streets providing access to individual properties and had not been applied to limited access freeways except for a small section of 1-105. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to deny the appeal. Councilor Holmer felt that the present appeal merited the approval of the City Council. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1, Mr. Holmer voting nay. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 9 III. FINDINGS AND REPORT/LEVYING ASSESSMENTS e A. Findings and .Report (report, findings distributed) B. Levying Assessments ' Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. He stated that no staff report had been prepared for these two routine items but that staff was present to answer any questions of the City Council. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to approve the report and findings as outlined in the staff memo dated June 19, 1984. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. CB 2752--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer on Willagillespie Road from Country Club Road to 300 f~et south of Quinton Avenue (82-15) . CB 2753--An ordinance levying assessments for paving on Fir Acres Road from Bond Lane to Willagillespie Road (82-28). CB 2754--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on 6th Avenue from 1,100 feet west of Garfield Street to 600 feet west of Garfield Street (84-07). CB 2755--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer in Country Club Road from Willagillespie Road to 200 feet e east; and sanitary sewer 200 feet east of Willagillespie Road from 400 feet north of Country Club Road to Country Club Road (84-08). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bills be read the second time by council bill numbers only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this ti me. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bills 2752, 2753, 2754, and 2755 were read the second time by council bill numbers only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bills were declared passed (and became Ordinance Nos. 19257 [CB 2752], 19258 [CB 2753], 19259 [CB 2754], and 19260 [CB 2755]. IV. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONER RUTAN ON RESEARCH PARK CONFERENCE Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Roger Rutan, President of the Eugene Planning Commission, presented a report on the Urban Land Institute-sponsored Research Park Conference he had attended on June 10 and 11. He felt the council might better understand the proposed Riverfront e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 10 Park Work Program as distributed if it had some background on the conference and the various projects being performed throughout the United States. He stated - that Richard Hersch and Dan Williams of the University of Oregon, John Porter of the Eugene Development Department, and two Oregon Pacific representatives had also attended the conference. Addressing the present projects being proposed, Mr. Rutan stated that the key concepts were: 1. Each project must be individually designed and organized. 2. Participating parties must set project objectives. 3. Expert advice must be obtained to properly develop the project. 4. No pure research parks existed in the United States; all had some mixed use. 5. Once the project has been defined, roles must be set for full-time organization staff. Mr. Rutan said the work of the City of Eugene, the University of Oregon, and the community has been accurate in the direction of the Riverfront Park project. He said he heard numerous comments reflecting the appropriateness of the project for marketing Eugene based on the presence of the factors identified by developers as necessary for business sitings. Mr. Rutan stated that staff had developed and presented the proposed Riverfront Park Work Program to the Planning Commission as directed by the council. He felt that the commission should not take action on the work program until he had the opportunity to discuss the program with representatives of the University of Oregon. He stated that he has discussed the program with Dr. Hersch who has supervised the University staff in making recommendations on who will be in the authoritative position regarding the research park, establishing a core group, developing a consensus among the e faculty and administration, and identifying internal processes and key decision- makers. Mr. Rutan asked the council to review the proposed work program as revised subsequent to its presentation to the Planning Commission. He added that the program has been reviewed by Dr. Hersch and the Citizen Involvement Committee. Referring to Item A(3) on Page 3 of the June 15, 1984, Riverfront Work Program and Citizen Involvment Program, he said University personnel felt that different people would be needed throughout the project to address various issues. While he stated that the proposed work program had not been formally approved by the Planning Commission, he said the commission looked to him as the expert based on hi s involvement wi th the project. He asked the council to take action on the program at its June 27 meeting, adding that the University was ready to proceed with the project. He stated that Susan Brody and Jim Farah of the Planning Department were available to answer any questions of the council. Councilor Holmer asked if it would be appropriate to add a representative of the banking or capital formation interests to the Riverfront Study Task Force. Mr. Rutan responded that it would be appropriate at some point but that it was an issue of size. He explained that capital formation would be a functional issue rather than a structural issue if the Univerity provided the land for the project, that land to represent the initial project capital. Councilor Holmer asked if the Southern Pacific Corporation in the Technical Advisory Group would be the only transportation interests represented. Mr. Rutan sta ted tha t the corporation would be involved in a technical standpoint. He added that the Southern Pacific Corporation had been very aggressive in developing its properties and had a vast amount of experience in the transportation area. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 11 The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to June 27, 1984. e (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS:jk/ts/CM8a12 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 1984 Page 12