04/13/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e From the beginning this put constraints on their actions. The committee would not hire new staff. They were dealing with all four factors: strategies, land use, employment and training, and environmental resources. There was a strong consensus for expanding local firms. There was agreement that it is important to provide adequate land for certain kinds of industrial firms. They are trying to keep up with training programs. Tourism has been a major factor in the Performing Arts Center and Convention Bureau considerations. The committee has not taken a role in that issue. Ms. Miller reviewed "Eugenels Economic Develop- ment Strategies," adopted by the Eugene City Council December 17, 1980. These strategies were developed by a very diverse committee. The committee has recently completed the formulation of guidelines for firms wishing to locate in Eugene. Ms. Wooten referred to the memorandum of April 7, 1981, to the Mayor and Council from councilors Miller and Wooten on the subject, "Economic Development." She referred to item II (page 2), COORDINATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. She explained that the Lane County PIC is moving forward on their own economic development planning and strategies without the involvement of the City of Eugene. It is important for Eugene to reaffirm its commitment to work with other jurisdictions, to put forth a recommendation of a new structure, and to take an assertive role. The City needs to inform Lane County and Springfield that it is not comfortable with the community consensus document that was developed without Eugene's participation. Eugene is not in a position to provide the services described in the document without some formal communi- cation. This gesture needs to be made fairly soon so the County does not feel that they are proceeding with the endorsement of the total community. Ms. Wooten asked the councilors if there was agreement. Ms. Smith saw the biggest problem as that of the lack of coordination between the public and the private sectors. The best organization needs to be d~veloped to coordinate the total efforts whether the organizations be separate or in L-COG. Ms. Miller said that they had gone to the conference to achieve community con- sensus. Much of what they were proposing suffered from not having the input of the City. Much of what was proposed could not be done because of legal limita- tions or a lack of resources. This should be made clear to the County PIC as early as possible so that the City is not accused of blocking the process. Ms. Schue had attended the League of Women Voters' program on economic develop- ment. The consensus of that group appeared to be that the Economic Improvement Committee (EIC) and the County PIC were the central, active organizations. Ms. Miller objected to EIC because the County and Springfield will not fund it. Its representation and funding distribution are set up but are not the same as L-COG's. Eugene has been paying more and getting less. She said it could still be a functioning organization if jurisdictions would pay their dues. Mr. Gleason said he met with Steve Burkett and George Morgan and was left with the impression that payment could be made. He was also left with the impression that if EIC is an opportunity, it is only an opportunity if it is part of L-COG and funded as part of that organization. This would take care of the consti- tutional representation issue. Mr. Gleason asked for comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Apri 1 13, 1981 Page 2