04/13/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e e Ms. Wooten noted she favored a greater proportion of business and consumer representation for such a committee. Mr. Hamel asked if it would be possible to reconstitute the EIC under L-COG. He had looked at it in the past as a tool in receiving Federal funds. The membership was composed of mostly elected officials with two at-large members. Ms. Wooten did not favor resurrecting EIC because it had a reputation of being unstable. Mr. Lindberg agreed there was a need for a body to coordinate. He feared that the steering committee of the Lane County PIC may have a hidden agenda, since they seem to frame the issues as growth/no growth. He saw it as critical to have an organization that could frame issues that are palatable to everyone and that would delegate respon- sibility. Mr. Obie spoke of the morass of organizations interested in economic development. He said one option might be for Eugene to take a position of leadership and encourage the other organizations to keep in contact with Eugene. He questioned whether they should reconsider the port concept. Ms. Miller was wary of giving power to one entity. She perceives a lot of people wanting to tell them what to do. Mr. Gleason suggested that the City relay to the existing organizations its interest in the issues they are addressing. The issues are divisible and definable. The City could establish its own structure and determine the member- ship. They could let Lane County and Springfield know that their participation would be preferable through L-COG. Mr. Gleason said this suggestion goes against 10 to 20 years of public policy. However, he recognized that Eugene represents 60 percent of the employment base and 60 to 70 percent of the economic development opportunity. He suggested that the issue of participation of Lane County and Springfield immobilizes the City. The County needs to generate economic development that is outside the City. Mr. Hamel said that was the way he viewed the EIC. The EIC suffered from criticism from those who did not participate. Ms. Miller summed up the discussion. The issues for the council appeared to be whether they want coordination of a committee in L-COG, maintenance of the status quo, or to aggressively pursue a strategy. In the latter case, it must be determined how aggressive one should be. Mr. Farah referred to the memo and Eugene's goals. He explained one chart indicating the department's involvement with economic development in three basic directions. There is a whole potpourri of actors. The process is not working as smoothly as it should. Mr. Gleason explained for every issue "that gets put in the washing machine" there are 42 connotations (departments, boards, and commissions). If the issue has several facets, it is multiplied by 42. This is not organizationally possible to coordinate. If one extends this dispersion to Lane County and Springfield, coordination is impossible. Referring to the industrial portion of the Cone/Breeden projects, Mr. Farah noted that the special area study will be before the Planning Commission in June. Ms. Wooten was optimistic about bringing the Cone-Breeden issue to resolution very soon. Mr. Gleason saw resolution in about one month. Mr. Farah explained that the property would best serve the goal of maintaining an adequate supply of available industrial land. Mr. Farah explained a map of the city outlining possible industrial sites. He explained that the West Eugene area is being considered for light industrial sites. He said the issue is MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 13, 1981 Page 3