Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly emphasized that the resolution was applicable to all providers. He quoted an e-mail <br />from Jack Roberts of the Metropolitan Partnership, which expressed his support for the proposed <br />resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd asked if the definition of"hospital" included a private surgery center, for example. Mr. <br />Kelly referred him to Finding C, adding he did not believe that the definition allowed for the City <br />to provide such a use with financial incentives. Mr. Klein confirmed that the definition of a <br />"hospital" would be revised to include a hospital with a trauma center, 24-hour emergency access, <br />surgery, etc. <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle concurred with a suggestion from Mr. Papd that the waiver of permit fees could be an <br />incentive for a hospital provider and could be added to the list of incentives. He pointed out that <br />two providers could want the same level of value but different incentives. Mr. Coyle believed <br />that the providers would need to be involved in those discussions. Mr. Pap6 suggested text that <br />read "Work to provide incentives that would be valuable to the particular provider." Mr. Coyle <br />believed that such text was acceptable and addressed the issue that such incentives were <br />situational. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 questioned the inclusion of Finding C in the resolution. He did not think a facilitator <br />was needed as he thought it created an additional hurdle for the provider to overcome. However, <br />if there was to be a facilitator, he thought it should be one the provider supported. He suggested <br />the finding be deleted or a list of potential facilitators be included in the resolution. <br /> <br /> Mr. Papd moved to strike Finding C from the resolution. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Mr. Papd moved to insert the following text in Finding C: "... <br /> from a list of three names provided by the provider." <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the resolution before the council. However, he regretted the proscriptive <br />nature of the language in Section 1 and suggested text that indicated the council would provide <br />incentives that "may include but are not limited to the following." Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman <br />accepted Mr. Meisner's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not think the City could afford to provide incentives to development such as <br />surgery centers, which would be developed anyway. The resolution was focused on a full-service <br />provider, which was what the community needed. She said that the resolution was a positive, <br />assertive statement of the council's intent. She thanked Mr. Roberts for his support of the <br />resolution and City staff and legal counsel for their work on the resolution. She hoped that the <br />council would support the motion on a unanimous vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling acknowledged that the item before the council was a nonbinding resolution, but <br />expressed concern that in the future it would be "waved in front of the council as chiseled in <br />stone." <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 2003 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />