05/14/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Keller noted that he feels the residents of this area should have first priority to be hired. He mentioned the training aspects could be ~ worked in using this method of implementation. He stated that the com- .., . mittee also recognized that one of the reasons industry is looking at this area as a possible location is that there is an existing job pool. Mr. Lieuallen stated he felt that would be good as long we were concen- trating on the locally unemployed. . Mr. Delay stated that there needs to be an incentive to offer to the industries, whether it be a revolving loan fund or perhaps a local devel- opment bank where capital formations could be provided, which would give a real public benefit. He feels incentives would be the best way. Mr. Henry stated he assumed the council accepted the report. Mr. Farah stated they. would like to bring back another resolution next week and Mayor Keller stated this resolution could be amended to extend the life of this committee. The concensus was to have them bring back a new resolu- tion for continuation of the Economic Development committee. Meeting was recessed to the McNutt Room for continuation for the presentation/ discussion on the Metropolitan Plan Update. V. METRO PLAN UPDATE--PRESENTATION/DISCUSS10N Jim Croteau stated that, in regard to the May 9 memo to City Council from the Planning Department, regarding the report of the Elected Official Coordinating Committee meeting of May 8, 1980, four differences were discussed and out of this three Planning Commission recommendations came. He stated that what seems to be happening with this committee is that they are discussing the items, reaching a consensus in committee, and going back to their respective boards for reaffirmation of the position. The first difference is in regard to treatment of forest lands in the Metropolitan Plan, which is Poli~y No. 11 on page 111-C-7. There were two versions of the plan which could be considered applicable in the Metropolitan Plan. The first version with minor revisions should be considered more germane to areas within the urban growth boundary where the metropolitan goals were of greater importance, since these areas would ultimately be converted to urban use. The second version, which was proposed by Lane County, seems more applicable to areas within the Metro Plan but outside the urban growth boundary. Again, the wording would have to be revised to pertain to this particular area of the plan. Since these areas remain rural, the importance or priority of the metropo- litan goals would be of less importance when evaluating timber harvests. The tentative action of the coordinating committee was to recommend inclusion of both versions of Policy 11 with the first version being specific within the urban growth boundary and the second outside the urban growth boundary. Mayor Keller asked if this deals only with the LCC basin. Steve Gordon stated this would be dealing with only areas that would be rural with a forest designation. Mr. Croteau stated that all land under the jurisdic- tional boundaries would be handled by a joint cooperative agreement with all three jurisdictions. This would be in regard to land that is rural, 5/14/80--10 e e