Four decades ago, student housing money purchased three parcels of land now occupied by the Riverfront Research Park. When the research park took over the land two decades later, the planning office drafted a rededication plan that called for University Housing to be compensated $223,840 in 2003.
After years of inter-office memos, numerous recalculations to account for earned interest and a legal counsel ruling that changed the way University land rededication was looked at, University Housing will receive $34,746. An April 19 memo from University Vice President for Administration Dan Williams to Director of University Housing Mike Eyster finalized the decision, citing the ruling from Melinda Grier, legal counsel to the University.
“In short, the UO’s financial obligation is limited to making bond payments on the property from the correct funding source if the use of the property changes while there is outstanding debt,” Williams wrote. “While I know my decision does not fully
meet your expectations, I believe it is fair.”
The old plan of reimbursing housing more than $200,000 for the land was not only financially unfeasible, it wasn’t required under state law regarding land rededication within the Oregon University System, Williams said.
“We had a certain understanding about what we would do, but it was based on a misunderstanding about the legal requirements for repayment,” Williams said.
Though University Housing was scheduled to be paid more than $200,000 for the research park land, when it came time to make the payment in 2003, Grier examined the legal requirements for land rededication and concluded that no such payment was necessary.
The ruling stated that repayment was only required if there was still outstanding bond debt left on the property after its use changed;
no repayment for the purchase price of the land or any sort of interest
is required.
“We got a little more careful about what the rules were that governed us, and we found that we did not have that obligation at all,” Williams said in a March 30 Emerald article (“University land repayment plans questioned”).
Williams said the decision should not come as a surprise to anyone,
as it only “formalized what we all
kind of understood was going
to happen.”
Eyster said he understood there were a variety of different
repayment figures the University could decide upon and said he
was not certain which one would
be selected.
“I didn’t know what the decision was going to be; I really didn’t,” Eyster said. “I guess I thought
the opinion was subject to further input. At the same time, I was
not surprised.”
After Grier issued the 2003 ruling regarding land rededication policies within a university system, Riverfront Research Park Director Diane Wiley made recalculations based on the ruling that gave two figures based on two scenarios. The scenarios concerned when the research park should be considered an occupant of the land: in 1989, the year the park’s master plan was adopted, or in 1993, the year the park opened. If 1993 had been the date used, University Housing would be compensated $10,866.
While the University is in no financial position to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars it is not legally obligated to allocate, “on the
other hand, we want to be fair,” Williams said.
Eyster said there was a scenario in which housing would not be compensated anything for
the Riverfront Research Park
land and that Williams probably considers the final decision to be a generous one.
“I think he thinks he’s doing more than is required,” Eyster said.
Williams said he listened to the advice of all involved parties when making the decision and reached one he thinks is quite fair given the University’s legal requirements.
“I’m sure Mike was a little disappointed, but I don’t think he was surprised,” Williams said.
Eyster and Williams both said they are happy to have the Riverfront Research Park repayment issue settled because it can be used as a precedent for decisions regarding properties in the east campus neighborhood purchased and maintained with student housing money.
“It was important to do it right with the Riverfront Research Park because, in many ways, it will drive how the east campus land issues are handled,” Williams said.
The East Campus Task Group, a group of University officials charged with handling the transition of management of east campus properties from the housing department to the greater University, met Wednesday to discuss a variety of issues related to the properties’ management and the cost of making necessary moves and general repairs.
Task Group Chair Rich Linton, the University’s vice president for research and graduate studies, discussed the repayment decision during the meeting and said it was “hard to argue with the fairness of the principle.”
The group discussed the details behind transferring management for east campus properties, focusing on a memo Williams sent to Linton and Director of Campus Operations George Hecht. The memo, which is still in draft form, states that the University Space Committee will be responsible for authorizing future use of east campus properties.
According to the memo, any department authorized to use a property will be responsible for reimbursing anymaintenance-associated expenses or removal of building structures necessary to make the department’s use of the land possible.
However, University Housing will be exempt from such reimbursement obligations because of the
department’s long history of
financing the purchase and
general maintenance of the east campus properties.
Group members — who include Linton, Eyster, Hecht, Vice President for Student Affairs Anne Leavitt, University Planning Director and architect Chris Ramey, and Director of Business Affairs for University Housing Allen Gidley — discussed the exemption and whether it was realistic to expect the housing
department to be free from any
future payment for use of east
campus property.
“As much as I like the ring of that, is that practical and realistic? Is it going to happen?” Eyster said, alluding to the financial troubles that can hinder the execution of agreements within the University.
Group members said the exemption was worth including in the newly drafted policy because it will be something the housing department can point to if it is ever asked to make payments on land in the east campus area for future use.
“At best case it protects you. At worst case, it entitles you to the spirit of negotiation,” Leavitt said.
Hecht agreed that it was in housing’s best interest to keep the
exemption in the policy and said the department would just have to
rely on future University officials to “do the right thing” and respect
the agreement.
“Of course they’re always struggling to finance the right thing,” Hecht said. “You can’t always afford to do what’s right.”

[email protected]