Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly voiced his support for the amendment. He averred it would maximize the benefit of the enterprise <br />zone. He was pleased to note that the amendment did not break new ground; such a cap had been instituted <br />in a prior zone. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon called it premature to begin to frame community standards at this point. She said the council <br />had already decided to have a community discussion on standards after the initial zone application was <br />submitted. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ agreed, stating that standards were not needed at this stage of the process. He asked if such a <br />standard would help or hurt the application at the State level. <br /> <br />Loan Specialist for the Financial Services Division Denny Braud responded that it would be an interim <br />standard similar to what had been already proposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ reiterated that he would prefer not to discuss and implement individual community standards <br />separately. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly underscored that there was no monetary amount included in the current amendment. He stated <br />that the amendment demonstrated the council's intent to be flexible. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that her intent was that this cap would become "one with the zone" and embed the cap <br />as part of the entire zone within boundaries. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said the council had worked hard to get to a seven-to-one vote on the application process. He <br />recalled that the intent at this point was that the council would go ahead with the process with the under- <br />standing that a public process for job quality standards would ensue. He reminded the council that City <br />Manager Dennis Taylor had recommended the council use 1997 standards as a placeholder. He did not <br />want to be rushed because the result could be a "shoddy product." He averred that the amendment bypassed <br />the public process and was, as a result, unfair. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor commented that there were two issues that the council was addressing individually. He <br />appreciated the desire on the part of people to insert what they felt was important into the community <br />standards, but stressed that this was "discussion number two." He said the need to get the application in <br />place was "discussion number one." <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said this was not a new issue. She reiterated her reasons for incorporating the cap in the <br />language of the zone. She felt that without specific language, it would be completely open-ended. She <br />predicted the enterprise zone would fail should it come to a tie vote. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Bettman voting in <br /> favor. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said the process should remain as simple as possible. He commented that one tax lot was not <br />railroad property, the site of an auto "pick and pull" yard. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 20, 2005 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />