Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 did not support the amendment. He said the committee's recommendation for an enterprise zone was intended to address the need for economic revitalization in Eugene. An enterprise zone could be a useful tool in achieving that goal. He believed the amendment took some important properties "out of play" and he did not think it met the intent of the State program. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the amendment. He thought it made sense, and did not think the amount of property removed from the zone as a result was significant. While he acknowledged Mr. Pap6's comments about the purposes of the zone, he said there were also City purposes and goals to be considered. He thought it appropriate to focus the zone on economic development in a manner consistent with the City's growth management goals. Ms. Solomon opposed the amendment. She thought it undermined the opportunity before the council. She asked why the City would not want to take full advantage of the tool that existed, noting the previous zone had worked well and had been quite active. She did not want to place more restrictions on the zone, undermining its ability to be successful. Ms. Solomon said the advisory committee, which had been very diverse, did not exclude greenfields from a zone in its recommendations. She said the committee had a robust discussion about the issue, and she was comfortable with the recommendation that the council received. Mr. Poling also opposed the amendment. He said there was considerable competition for such enterprise zones from communities around the state. He agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pap6 and Ms. Solomon, and wanted to move forward with the recommendations of the mayor's committee and make the application as simple as possible using State guidelines. Ms. Nathanson said that as the council considered adding restrictions to the zone, it should think about the consequences of those restrictions. She was convinced the community lacked sufficient redevelopment and brownfield sites to meet the needs of local businesses seeking to expand either on-site or in the community in general. Ms. Nathanson recalled the council's discussion regarding nodal development, during which it got so prescriptive about the way development occurred that some areas would have no development at all rather than some development that would be better than what existed. She opposed the amendment. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment as she believed it made the zone less harmful. She said just because greenfields were not in an enterprise zone did not mean that people could not expand or develop on those areas, they merely would not receive a tax exemption. She thought the zone should provide some clear benefit to the community in return for the tax exemption. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor's remarks. She said the last time the City had an enterprise zone it had been very controversial and contentious. She had personally opposed such zones. She said the attitude that the zone must be "all or nothing" had divided the community for a long time. Ms. Bettman said she believed she could support a focused enterprise zone with a demonstrable community benefit. Ms. Bettman said that several councilors believed the community lacked sufficient shovel-ready greenfield sites. There was a demand for such sites, and she questioned why the community should have to pay businesses to develop on such sites in light of the demand and supply. It did not make good economic sense. She believed it made good economic sense to encourage expansion and development on existing, industrially zoned sites that were either underused or needed to be cleaned up. She pointed out that once the council proceeded with the enterprise zone, it had to accept the companies that applied if they met the eligibility requirements. That had been a concern for many residents who opposed the companies that were recruited to Eugene when the last zone existed. Ms. Bettman advocated for a zone MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2004 Page 9 Work Session