Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly remarked that it was clear from reading the minutes that the committee had worked through many <br />issues in a short amount of time. He wished they had settled on principles and goals that would drive the <br />recommendations. He thought that to be the "biggest vacuum" he saw in previous discussions. He <br />appreciated that the committee had reached a 75 percent agreement, as it had been charged to do by council <br />order. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd thanked the committee for its work. He commented that the City had "been around and around" <br />on the second recommendation. He asked if there was any sense from the committee as to how this would be <br />accomplished. Ms. Smith replied that the committee had discussed the logistics of an annual review. <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle commented that, in a perfect world, a piece of land use code would be adopted and it would be <br />used for a period of time to determine its efficacy and then either revised or retained. He opined that the <br />challenge in Eugene was that what was administrative and what was policy became longer in time. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Coyle affirmed that an annual review was part of land use <br />code in cities in which he was previously employed. Mr. Taylor added that staff was beginning to <br />incorporate such review as part of the process in a routine way. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ appreciated the Addendum: The Drama of Compromise, written by committee member Don <br />Kahle. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon lauded the report and the work of the committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thanked the committee for the time they had put into the work. She said it had done the "best <br />with what it had to work with." She thought the recommendations were "recycled old tools." She had hoped <br />that the committee would determine that a long-term committee should be formed to look at what the City's <br />role in economic development should be and what the real opportunities were, instead of looking at one tool <br />and "looking at it in a vacuum." She bemoaned that the committee had not been able to look at the cost <br />benefit analysis of economic tools. She opined that the discussion had yet to happen in which the City <br />considered what it could do with the resources the committee was asking for in these recommendations if the <br />could be invested in economic development in other ways. She would have liked to have seen a definition of <br />economic development "that the community would buy into." She reiterated her objection to the makeup of <br />the committee, calling it representative of "only a small sliver of the population." <br /> <br />Mr. Poling also commended the work of the committee. He hoped the City Council would take the <br />recommendations and put them to use. He noted that two surveys, conducted in 2002 and 2004, indicated <br />that constituents wanted the City to take an active role in economic development. He disagreed that the <br />makeup of the committee was not diverse. He thought the members were very representative of the diversity <br />of the community. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey thanked all of the members of the committee. He noted that initially there was hesitation on <br />the part of the committee on whether it should proceed. He believed there were a number of recommenda- <br />tions that the City Council could work with, but the council would only address the first one at its regular <br />meeting following the work session. He stressed that the committee had given the City Council a "tremen- <br />dous leg-up" by tackling the issues. He felt comfortable that the council had received great work from them. <br />He expressed hope that the council would have the courage to move forward with it. He called the report the <br />beginning and expressed hope that it would be put into action and not placed upon the shelf. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />