Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson supported the recommendation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she currently did not support the recommendation, but she wanted to think about it more. <br />She thought an advocate was needed to protect individuals as well as neighborhood organizations. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling voiced his support for the recommendation. He surmised from Mr. Coyle's words that the <br />facilitator would help an applicant through all aspects of the process including working through any issues <br />that could arise from neighborhood concerns. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Smith to speak to the intent of the committee regarding the facilitator position. <br />Ms. Smith stated that the intent was not to advocate for developers. She felt more comfortable with the <br />word ;applicant.' She related that the committee had discussed neighborhood groups and had posited that <br />the position would embody fairness and help with how the code would be implemented. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the motion come back with the embodiment of the intent of the committee. <br />She said her support would be predicated on the language. She referred to the minutes and asked where the <br />funding for the position would come from. She thought the applicant should contribute for the service and <br />that taxpayers should not subsidize it. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the value of the position and asked staff to provide the council with a range of <br />alternatives to fund it. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor responded by saying that the City needed to do many things within PDD and within the General <br />Fund and some of the service funds. He said the motion here would enable staff to build the decision <br />package that could be considered by the PDD director and ultimately by City management. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said if the City was getting in the way of redevelopment of an existing site or the ultimate <br />development of another site, then it was part of the problem and needed to be part of the solution. She stated <br />that there was a substantial majority of Eugene citizens who believed the City should be involved with <br />economic development. As such, she felt the recommendation to be entirely appropriate. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Coyle explained that in the conditional use permit <br />(CUP) process it was the staff's role to work with the neighborhood, the developer, and the code for the best <br />possible redevelopment of the site. He called it a balancing act. He commented that, as much as staff tried, <br />it was impossible to identify all of the outcomes in a body of code prior to its implementation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that a decision package implied that it would come in the City Manager's draft <br />budget. He felt that his request would not cause any delay. He reiterated that he was only asking staff to <br />come back with funding options. Mr. Taylor responded that the implementation of the economic develop- <br />ment committee's report would be a justification for a larger discussion with the Budget Committee as to <br />funding options. He reiterated that the council would have three work sessions to fully discuss the <br />recommendations. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for council comments on the recommendation to proceed with the application to <br />establish an Enterprise Zone. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />