Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Braud that staffwas not sure of the precise amount of land that would be eliminated from the zone if the amendment were accepted. Mr. Braud estimated the amount to be eight percent to ten percent. The majority was in industrial zoning. Mr. Pap6 said he was not arguing that Ms. Bettman's amendment offered no benefit to the community. He was interested in what he thought was the best for the community in terms of improving ils economic drivers and creating better jobs. He thought eliminating ten percent of the land in the zone would be a failure to realize the maximum benefit from the tool. Mr. Pap6 said his focus was on business retention as opposed to business recruitment. He was not arguing for business recruitment. He suggested that Eugene would not have lost Symantec to Springfield if it had an enterprise zone for the business to relocate to. He was aware of other businesses in Eugene with a limited ability to expand on site that would like an opportunity to relocate to an enterprise zone. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Bettman's point regarding the future of manufacturing. He said it was not the future. He concurred with Mr. Kelly regarding the relatively small amount of land involved. Mr. Meisner expressed the wish that the "all or nothing" mentality both political spectrums of the council were demonstrating would end. He did not like it, or the unwillingness of councilors to listen or consider something that would gain near-majority support and survive when a new council took office. Ms. Solomon said the committee was not specific in its recommendations to develop brownfields only, so it appeared to her that the committee recognized the need to keep greenfields in the zone. She said that the City was not paying people to locate in the zone. She said the City could not give away money it was not receiving. Speaking to the issue of recruitment versus retention, Ms. Solomon pointed out the majority of companies in the last zone had been small local companies. Ms. Nathanson said the committee may not have drawn a map but it had discussed the issue whether to focus on brownfields only. She thought the committee's work and recommendations regarding the topic were solid and she wanted accept them without much alteration. Ms. Nathanson said the community could not survive on retail while awaiting the development of knowledge-based businesses, which she supported. She said the zone was about business retention, and she agreed with that focus. She pointed to the businesses that left Eugene to relocate in other communities because they had been unable to find a financially viable way to stay in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson asked those in favor of the amendment to reconsider their positions and honor the committee's hard work. Ms. Nathanson said she was disturbed by the distinction made between benefit to the community and benefit to the businesses. The enterprise zone existed because there was a real benefit to the community, that of job retention. Mayor Torrey said he continued to oppose the amendment. He pointed out that developing brownfield sites was very expensive and the cost would not be offset by the tax exemption. Cities the size of Eugene did not generally receive assistance from the federal government in cleaning such sites. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council comments. Ms. Bettman said Eugene would have to address the issue ofbrownfield sites. Much of the industrial land in the city's core was contaminated. She thought the City needed to give businesses willing to develop on brownfield sites more benefits than could be provided by an enterprise zone. M1NUTES~Eugene City Council October 11, 2004 Page 11 Work Session