My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B - Econ.Dev.Comm. Recomm.
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-08/09/04WS
>
Item B - Econ.Dev.Comm. Recomm.
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:11:18 PM
Creation date
8/9/2004 10:58:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/9/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
time was to use predetermined criteria to make decisions about when to provide assistance or subsidies to <br />businesses beyond what would be provided to all businesses. She added she struggled with the concepts <br />of family wage jobs or wages two times the minimum wage. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Kahle, Ms. Pierce stated she did not know why the City Council did <br />not adopt the proposals generated ten years ago. <br /> <br />Mr. Forbes asked committee members to indicate if they thought further discussion on general principles <br />was needed or if they would become clear during the policies discussion. There was general consensus to <br />move forward with policy discussions. <br /> <br />IV. ISSUES AND POLICIES <br /> <br />Mr. Moore returned the ranking tool collected at the beginning of the meeting and explained the ranking <br />process that he used. He reported that only subcategories receixfing ten points or more were identified, <br />with the following distribution of points: <br /> <br /> · Land development-25 votes <br /> <~ Land Supply: Buildable Land Inventory- 1'5 points <br /> o Code Revisions- 13 points <br /> o Infrastructure/Public Facilities 19 points <br /> c~ Take advantage of vacant buildings <br /> · Business Assistance/Incentives-25 votes <br /> o Enterprise zone- 16 points <br /> · Coordination/Partnership/Institutional Infrastruc:ture -28 votes <br /> o Businesses coordination- 10 points <br /> o City/County coordination- 10 Points <br /> · Getting Sustained Implementation- 36 votes <br /> o The Vision/decision guidelines- 15 points <br /> c> Sustainable/Consistent through Political and Business Cycles- 25 points <br /> <br />Mr. Kahle distributed a handout entitled Economic DevelopmentfOr Eugene Must Focus on the Whole, <br />Not Only the Parts that addressed creating sustainability, using the Portland Development Commission <br />(PDC) model. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wanicheck, seconded by Ms. Edwards, moved to consider the top <br /> six sub-issues identified in the exercise, based upon the number of points <br /> received. The motion passed 13:1. <br /> <br />Ms. Pierce addressed Mr. Kahle's suggestion of using the PDC as a model noting that the Lane <br />Metropolitan Partnership was established to provide a tool for regional economic development. She <br />questioned whether another group would be able to be effective. <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle described the various local bodies such as the Eugene Planning Commission and the Eugene <br />Water and Electric Board that provided some level of advising on local economic development issues. <br /> <br />Referring to the PDC, Mr. Sullivan said that the PDC acted autonomously from the Portland City <br />Council. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic DeveloPment May 3, 2004 Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.