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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bowerman, responding to Ms. Pierce, said he thought the boundary was defined conceptually in the motion, and the committee needed to pass a motion to arrive at a precise map. He said he did not understand Mr. Proudfoot's comment on urban growth boundary pressure, and continued that the Enterprise Subcommittee had been looking for a proposal that could get completely through an adoption process, in addition to this committee. Mr. Forbes wondered if there was a compromise of giving brownfields extra points but still allowing shovel-ready sites to be included. He said 30 years ago those sites were identified as the area where we would do our economic development. Ms. Edwards said she liked Ms. Rygas' analogy of houses, but said she believed our competition was not about which house in the neighborhood to buy, but whether to buy a house in Eugene or in Spokane, Washington. Mr. Re'Voal said he understood what Mr. Proudfoot was saying about the urban growth boundary and that he did not know that it made sense to get rid of investment that had already occurred. He said he was equally concerned that the proposal with infrastructure-ready sites included would not get through the approval process. Like Ms. Pierce, he said he would like to see a map. Mr. Forbes asked committee members if they were ready to vote on the motion or wanted to delay. Ms. Pierce suggested a vote to see what happens with the motion. Mr. Wanichek asked ifa map could be developed showing the area included in the motion, a map with additional brownfields, and a map with shovel-ready sites. Mr. Proudfoot pointed out that there was no debate on brownfields, because they would be included; the debate was on greenfields west of Beltline. Members discussed this point. Mr. Forbes asked the group to vote on the motion, and prepare for the next meeting based on the results of the vote. Ms. Rygas restated the motion. The motion was passed 9:3:1. IX. NEXT STEPS Mr. Forbes summarized that the committee has discussed guiding principles and business facilitation, has agreement on infrastructure, and some agreement on buildable land survey and the enterprise zone. He asked consultants and staff to summarize committee agreements for the next meeting. Mr. Moore said he would try to draft a report with agreements and send it electronically to committee members before the next meeting. The next MCED meeting was set for June 28, 2-5 p.m, to review the final report. Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Proudfoot are unable to make the meeting and will e-mail their comments. A meeting to vote on the final report was set for July 9, 9-11 a.m. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. (Recorded by Marjorie Beck) MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 14