Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner agreed the airport was not broken, but according to staff, it was breaking. He <br />believed the City would be faced with the cost of funding the airport's operations or capital <br />matches, and the City needed to start looking for a solution. He did not think it was not a big <br />commitment of council time to direct staff to do further work with the County on the issue. He <br />asked if a motion was necessary. Mr. Taylor reminded the council that Mr. Pap~ had asked that no <br />action be taken in his absence. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the airport was an obvious example of where the City was providing services <br />for nonresidents. She thought there was logic in asking the region to pay for the airport. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked where the money to support a regional airport would come from if there were <br />no property taxes being collected. Ms. Taylor suggested that taxes could be levied when and <br />where needed. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked the staff to contact the city managers and county administrators of the cities <br />and counties in the airport's service catchment basin and inquire about their interest in <br />regionalizing the airport. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited a fourth round of comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the district's boundary was predicated on the catchment and it would <br />not be necessary to involve all the counties mentioned by Mayor Torrey. Mayor Torrey pointed out <br />that the catchment included five counties. Mr. Noble indicated that both Ms. Bettman and Mayor <br />Torrey were correct. <br /> <br />There being no further comments or questions, Mayor Torrey moved onto the next agenda item. <br /> <br />D.WORK SESSION: Land Use Audits Review <br /> <br />Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle introduced Paul Zucker of Zucker <br />Systems of San Diego, consultant for the City. He noted Mr. Zucker's work as a trainer with the <br />American Planning Association and his consulting work with both the public and private sectors. <br />Mr. Coyle noted that Mr. Zucker had visited Eugene in March for three days and had done <br />extensive investigation at that time with staff and several focus groups. The results of the work <br />were included in a report provided to the council entitled OrganizationalAudit - Planning and <br />Development Department - Planning Division. He reported that the majority of the <br />recommendations were directed at staff, with three directed toward the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Zucker briefly reviewed his firm's study methodology, noting the focus groups that had been <br />convened and the staff interviews that had occurred. He said that he had repeatedly heard from <br />customers of the Planning Division that Eugene was a hard place to do business. That perception <br />seemed to be quite strongly felt. Focus group participants across the board appeared to want <br />more clarity in community direction and planning. He reported that the citizen group did not feel <br />represented in the planning process. Many participants did not feel the new code was well <br />understood, even by City staff. Mr. Zucker said that there was a continuing concern about the <br />prescriptive nature of the code. All participants indicated that communication between the <br />development community and division could be improved. The applicant focus group participants <br />were very concerned about the City's Public Works function as well, indicating it was creating <br />more problems than the Planning Division. <br /> <br /> MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 25, 2003 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />