Laserfiche WebLink
economic development, Mr. Kelly did not think it made sense for the council to approve the <br />definition. He likened it to approving the dictionary. He said that what was critical for the County <br />and City was not the definition, but the policies and criteria for the RFP. He thought the City <br />Council would have a better handle on the specific work it wanted done after its discussion of <br />potential economic development strategies. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the definition was debatable and meaningless at the same time. He noted <br />that the IGA was subject to annual budget approval, but the agreement was for three years. He <br />asked to what extent the agreement bound the City in the future. Mr. Klein said that it did not <br />obligate the City to budget for the contribution. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Klein his evaluation of the differences in the IGA. Mr. Klein indicated he <br />had not yet had the opportunity to thoroughly compare the new IGA and the old IGA. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed that the County definition was very broad and the City should focus on a <br />definition for the City. She was not willing to accept or endorse the definition as City policy. <br />Regarding the IGA, she said that there were many elements in the new IGA she did not support. <br />She cited discussion of prioritizing transportation projects that serve new businesses as an <br />example. In addition, the IGA mentioned high-wage jobs without being specific as to what that <br />meant. She found statements in the document to be inconsistent with City policy, and said the <br />findings did not indicate that local conditions mirrored national conditions. Ms. Bettman said the <br />document did not mention benchmarks or how progress would be measured. She wanted to know <br />that the City's investment in economic development was achieving what it was intended. She <br />thought the City's contribution would be better spent if the City could specify local strategies with <br />a good chance of success. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked why the IGA did not specifically mention the Metropolitan Partnership. Mr. Kelly <br />said that the IGA referred to a regional not-for-profit corporation, which was the partnership. He <br />said that the text was similar to the last IGA. Mr. Pap~ favored the IGA but wanted to tighten it to <br />ensure that those who responded could deliver the services requested. Mr. Kelly shared that <br />concern. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor also shared the concern expressed by Mr. Pap~. He thought the lack of specific <br />mention of the partnership a gap in the IGA. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said there was a strong possibility the partnership would not exist if the RFP did not <br />provide the partnership with a substantial amount of funding. The partnership needed about <br />$170,000. If the partnership was not successful in securing the money, the question became, who <br />was the economic development entity in Eugene-Springfield? Was it the two cities and their <br />chambers of commerce? He said that the council should not preclude the Metropolitan Partnership <br />from applying for an RFP segment. He asked Mr. Kelly for comment. Mr. Kelly responded that he <br />believed the definition of economic development as provided was sufficiently broad to cover the <br />range of Metropolitan Partnership activities. He wanted to ensure that whatever criteria the <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />