Item B - Econ.Dev.Comm. Recomm. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Goldsmith said he had attended a United Way of Lane County meeting the previous week, and wanted to bring to the committee's attention a report available on the United Way website (www.unitedwaylane.org) on a recent survey United Way had conducted on the State of Caring in Lane County in 2004. Mr. Goldsmith said the principal problem reported was paying for medical care, but also cited were significant increases in problems tied to the local economy. He urged members to read the report and noted that one Eugene City Councilor attending the meeting had mentioned referring some of the economy-related survey findings to MCED. IV. SUMMARY OF MEETING #5 AND AGREEMENTS TO DATE Referring to Ms. Fifield's e-mailed notes to committee members, Ms. Smith summarized actions from Meeting 5 and committee agreements to date. She said the four agreements to date capture the essence of what may come forward as recommendations to be included in the committee's report to the City Council. The four reported agreements to date were: 1. A buildable lands analysis of available commercial and industrial land consistent with state principles should be conducted. 2. There appeared to be consensus that infrastructure in Eugene functions well, and that it should continue to be regularly maintained and updated. 3. The Guiding Principles for Zoning Code Revisions should be adopted by the City Council (with upcoming language modifications). The Code should be intuitive, adaptable, enabling, logical, and fair, and should be reviewed annually. 4. The committee agreed that a business facilitator could improve the city's business climate. Ms. Smith noted that the consensus on infrastructure was not in the form of a motion, but discussed and agreed upon by the committee. She said if the committee still agrees, it should perhaps adopt the agreement by formal motion. Ms. Smith said proposals for the zoning code and business facilitator recommendations would be discussion items later in the meeting. V. IMPACTS OF BIG BOX STORES Ms. Smith said this item was a new charge to MCED from the City Council. She asked for discussion. Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Mr. Kahle that the committee decline engaging in the question of big box stores because the scope of the question exceeds the time limit given the committee, as well as the charge given it. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kahle wondered if the committee should be concerned that it had been given that charge and that a City Councilor at the United Way meeting had suggested referring other matters to MCED, given the committee's timeline of a final report by the end of June 2004. Ms. Pierce felt there was a tendency to create committees to study an issue as a delaying tactic when the City Council did not want to deal with the issue itself. She said the committee's charge to research, analyze, and investigate big box stores could be a very complicated process, even it were to meet for another six months. MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 2