Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/1981 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Trawler Restaurant Apr il 13, 1981 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Cynthia Wooten, Mark Lindberg, Emily Schue, D. W. Hamel, Betty Smith, Brian Obie. Adjourned meeting of the City Council dinner meeting of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. Ms. Miller turned the meeting over to Councilor Wooten. Ms. Wooten reminded the council that at the last meeting Ms. Miller, Mr. Obie, and she had asked for a discussion on the City's role in economic development. She explained that she, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Farah, Planning Department, would supply information for the program. Ms. Wooten noted the information distributed on alternate economic development options that the council might want to pursue. ,e Ms. Wooten explained the need for increased employment in her ward. She had asked the State Employment Office for statistical information. The City of Eugene has had an increase in unemployment from 9.3 percent last year to 9.9 percent this year. The nation as a whole has an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent. Lane County's unemployment is 11 percent and Oregon's is 10.8 percent. The city has a labor force of approximately 50,000 people. This means 5,000 individuals are unemployed and more than 15,000 individuals county-wide. Bankruptcies are increasing at a phenomenal rate. There have been 125 small businesses which have filed since November 1, 1980. Deliberations need to be taken on all the recommendations before the council can recommend something to the Eugene Economic Development Committee or proceed with any kind of action. The same is true of the issue of housing, a housing policy, and downtown housing. Consensus was for a mini-council goal-setting session to be held in order to reconsider the issues of housing and economic development and to establish what the council's next steps will be. Ms. Miller referred to the booklet "Economic Development Strategies." She presented background information in order to bring the council up to date as to what is being done. The booklet was adopted by both the Economic Development Committee and the City Council last November. Ms. Miller said that the Economic Development Committee is a very well-balanced committee. Any recommendation that would come from the committee with an overwhelming affirmative vote would be satisfactory to the vast majority of citizens. This balance has resulted in some frustrations on the committee, making it difficult to reach consensus. The committee began meeting in July 1979. The first meeting of the Economic Development Committee was involved in informing the committee members of the City's goals and policies. The committee concurred that whatever they recommended should not cost the city any additional taxes. .If MINUTES--Eugene City Council Apri 1 13, 1981 Page 1 ~ e e e From the beginning this put constraints on their actions. The committee would not hire new staff. They were dealing with all four factors: strategies, land use, employment and training, and environmental resources. There was a strong consensus for expanding local firms. There was agreement that it is important to provide adequate land for certain kinds of industrial firms. They are trying to keep up with training programs. Tourism has been a major factor in the Performing Arts Center and Convention Bureau considerations. The committee has not taken a role in that issue. Ms. Miller reviewed "Eugenels Economic Develop- ment Strategies," adopted by the Eugene City Council December 17, 1980. These strategies were developed by a very diverse committee. The committee has recently completed the formulation of guidelines for firms wishing to locate in Eugene. Ms. Wooten referred to the memorandum of April 7, 1981, to the Mayor and Council from councilors Miller and Wooten on the subject, "Economic Development." She referred to item II (page 2), COORDINATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. She explained that the Lane County PIC is moving forward on their own economic development planning and strategies without the involvement of the City of Eugene. It is important for Eugene to reaffirm its commitment to work with other jurisdictions, to put forth a recommendation of a new structure, and to take an assertive role. The City needs to inform Lane County and Springfield that it is not comfortable with the community consensus document that was developed without Eugene's participation. Eugene is not in a position to provide the services described in the document without some formal communi- cation. This gesture needs to be made fairly soon so the County does not feel that they are proceeding with the endorsement of the total community. Ms. Wooten asked the councilors if there was agreement. Ms. Smith saw the biggest problem as that of the lack of coordination between the public and the private sectors. The best organization needs to be d~veloped to coordinate the total efforts whether the organizations be separate or in L-COG. Ms. Miller said that they had gone to the conference to achieve community con- sensus. Much of what they were proposing suffered from not having the input of the City. Much of what was proposed could not be done because of legal limita- tions or a lack of resources. This should be made clear to the County PIC as early as possible so that the City is not accused of blocking the process. Ms. Schue had attended the League of Women Voters' program on economic develop- ment. The consensus of that group appeared to be that the Economic Improvement Committee (EIC) and the County PIC were the central, active organizations. Ms. Miller objected to EIC because the County and Springfield will not fund it. Its representation and funding distribution are set up but are not the same as L-COG's. Eugene has been paying more and getting less. She said it could still be a functioning organization if jurisdictions would pay their dues. Mr. Gleason said he met with Steve Burkett and George Morgan and was left with the impression that payment could be made. He was also left with the impression that if EIC is an opportunity, it is only an opportunity if it is part of L-COG and funded as part of that organization. This would take care of the consti- tutional representation issue. Mr. Gleason asked for comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Apri 1 13, 1981 Page 2 - e e Ms. Wooten noted she favored a greater proportion of business and consumer representation for such a committee. Mr. Hamel asked if it would be possible to reconstitute the EIC under L-COG. He had looked at it in the past as a tool in receiving Federal funds. The membership was composed of mostly elected officials with two at-large members. Ms. Wooten did not favor resurrecting EIC because it had a reputation of being unstable. Mr. Lindberg agreed there was a need for a body to coordinate. He feared that the steering committee of the Lane County PIC may have a hidden agenda, since they seem to frame the issues as growth/no growth. He saw it as critical to have an organization that could frame issues that are palatable to everyone and that would delegate respon- sibility. Mr. Obie spoke of the morass of organizations interested in economic development. He said one option might be for Eugene to take a position of leadership and encourage the other organizations to keep in contact with Eugene. He questioned whether they should reconsider the port concept. Ms. Miller was wary of giving power to one entity. She perceives a lot of people wanting to tell them what to do. Mr. Gleason suggested that the City relay to the existing organizations its interest in the issues they are addressing. The issues are divisible and definable. The City could establish its own structure and determine the member- ship. They could let Lane County and Springfield know that their participation would be preferable through L-COG. Mr. Gleason said this suggestion goes against 10 to 20 years of public policy. However, he recognized that Eugene represents 60 percent of the employment base and 60 to 70 percent of the economic development opportunity. He suggested that the issue of participation of Lane County and Springfield immobilizes the City. The County needs to generate economic development that is outside the City. Mr. Hamel said that was the way he viewed the EIC. The EIC suffered from criticism from those who did not participate. Ms. Miller summed up the discussion. The issues for the council appeared to be whether they want coordination of a committee in L-COG, maintenance of the status quo, or to aggressively pursue a strategy. In the latter case, it must be determined how aggressive one should be. Mr. Farah referred to the memo and Eugene's goals. He explained one chart indicating the department's involvement with economic development in three basic directions. There is a whole potpourri of actors. The process is not working as smoothly as it should. Mr. Gleason explained for every issue "that gets put in the washing machine" there are 42 connotations (departments, boards, and commissions). If the issue has several facets, it is multiplied by 42. This is not organizationally possible to coordinate. If one extends this dispersion to Lane County and Springfield, coordination is impossible. Referring to the industrial portion of the Cone/Breeden projects, Mr. Farah noted that the special area study will be before the Planning Commission in June. Ms. Wooten was optimistic about bringing the Cone-Breeden issue to resolution very soon. Mr. Gleason saw resolution in about one month. Mr. Farah explained that the property would best serve the goal of maintaining an adequate supply of available industrial land. Mr. Farah explained a map of the city outlining possible industrial sites. He explained that the West Eugene area is being considered for light industrial sites. He said the issue is MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 13, 1981 Page 3 e dollars. It is important to annex this area, have services in place, and be ready for development. The West Eugene sewer trunk line is the problem. The City has, in the sewer fund, $5 million. The trunk line would cost between $11 and $12 million (including a major pressure line that would feed back to the treatment plant in the area of Barger). Financing has been discussed. They have considered going to the private sector and a bond issue. It would take a year of decision and a year of construction. Mr. Obie stressed the importance of maintaining those sites. Mr. Farah explained that ME zoning will be coming to council in early summer. Mr. Farah pointed out the renewal site in the Four Corners area as the third area under consideration. There are access problems and tremendous image problems. This has better pay-off possibilities. It is consistent with the City's goals and policies. Ms. Miller said it does not make sense to spend $12 million on sewers when there is already usable land. Mr. Gleason added that these are timing issues in the capital improvements plan. He said one must take the general plan and match it up with the industrial siting and the economic development. This works into the financing scheme for the next year. The City then becomes an island unto itself. To coordinate with other jurisdictions does not work. Mr. Farah said this represents approximately 729 acres. Mr. Farah discussed Section III of the memo--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. The two directions advocated by the committee were to prepare industrial land for new companies and to help local businesses expand. Mr. Farah reviewed the memo. e Ms. Smith wanted to see the entire marketing concept included in the work plan, both the marketing of industrial lands and of products. The council discussed the State Department of Economic Development, the University, and LCC as poss- ible sources of aid in marketing. Ms. Miller suggested this was the role of private industry. Mr. Gleason added it currently costs more to get a new firm than to have local firms expand. Ms. Miller saw a role of assistance to local business. Mr. Obie agreed that a body is needed for solicitation and assistance to business in order to create a healthy small business economy. Ms. Miller suggested a person should give 25 to 50 percent of staff time to this project. Ms. Wooten wanted to see concrete technical assistance, not the promotion of Eugene. Ms. Wooten told the council about a young business that currently needs marketing help. Mr. Obie pointed out the tenacity needed to accomplish something of this sort in Eugene's envi- ronment with permits, hearings, etc. He distributed a paper summarizing the steps necessary to get conditional use zoning changes. One stop permits had been discussed. Ms. Baker said that she and Liz Cawood were compiling a bro- chure on how to negotiate the City's morass of permits, zoning, etc. Ms. Smith said she would like to see some steps eliminated before the brochure goes to press. The council decided to set a mid-term mini-goal-setting session. It would include a facilitator. Mr. Gleason defined economic development as a three- legged stool including destination point development (Convention Bureau, EPAC), redevelopment activity (housing, neighborhood development, downtown core, e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 13, 1981 Page 4 e e e retail, professional, office), and industrial siting (land development, expan- sion of existing firms, economic resource development, CETA). Ms. Miller added natural resource constraints (air shed, timber, metro plan, agricultural). The meeting was adjourned to the City Council Chamber. 7~'- ReSpectfully SUb~ Beth Conant Minuter Recorder BC:ky/CM8a1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 13, 1981 Page 5