Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would fix it. She alleged that the council had recently passed a motion giving the staff of the Planning Division a "broad ability" to amend the code and to make recommendations for systems changes. She questioned how this new facilitator/ombudsman's authority would interact with the authority of Mr. Coyle. Mr. Coyle stated that the new position had nothing to do with action taken by the council two weeks earlier. He clarified that the previous action related to the committee's recommendations necessitated staff's returning before the council to for approval or denial of modifications to the zoning code. Prior to this, he said actions would be enabled through a series of public hearings, reviews, consideration by the Planning Commission and its public hearing process. Regarding systems changes, he asserted that few such items were submitted to him, adding that he did not think, in a theoretical sense, such systems should be refined in a way that the director did not have to be involved in facilitating a permit. Ms. Bettman declared that the money should be used in a more strategic way by looking at how much could be spent on economic redevelopment and how best this amount of money could be spent for the community. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner that a motion should be brought back in the course of the budget process and the merits of it evaluated at that point. Ms. Solomon, referring to comments made to an alleged lack of evidence demonstrating the need for the position, pointed out that a 2003 community survey had indicated that 88 percent of the community felt the City should provide problem-solving assistance to businesses for siting, development, and permitting issues and 88 percent thought the City should take an active role helping local businesses create and retain jobs. She stressed that this was the context within which the Mayor's committee made its proposal. She thought the City ought to "give it a try." She pointed out that there was no lack of testimony as to how the planning and land use codes did not work. She recommended that to maintain the efficacy of the position, it be kept out of the PDD and placed in the City Manager's Office (CMO). She thought the level of efficacy would be dependent on the outcomes, which she suggested should be very specifically laid out by the council, and should be reviewed after two years. She supported moving forward with the recommen- dation. Ms. Nathanson expressed her support. She called it a "path through bureaucracy" rather than an additional layer, as some had asserted. She agreed with comments made by Ms. Taylor regarding other things that the council was interested in finding money for. She stated that the City had conducted performance audits and had provided reports to the council. She asserted that the facilitator position was not a way to throw more money at a problem, but how the City could rearrange its money to do something better than before. She pointed out that any action taken could be undone by the next council or the Budget Committee. Mayor Torrey called for a motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with a service level adjustment to fund a business facilitator function in fiscal years 2005-06. Regarding Ms. Solomon's comments in reference to the community survey, Ms. Bettman asserted that the City spent its resources on the Community Development Department and the Metro Partnership and if they were not getting the job done, the council needed to ask why. She suggested the City should look at shifting some of those resources to a different position to ensure that this job was done. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 4 Work Session