CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Syrett reported that the committee was well-balanced and included City and County elected officials as well as representatives of the business community and the community-at-large. She proceeded to review the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), the Proposed Resolution noted in Attachment A, and the Public Benefit Criteria, noted in Exhibit A. She shared that it was the goal of the committee to ensure there would be a balance between making it “too easy” to earn the full tax break and “too difficult” for smaller businesses to qualify, while at the same time setting a standard in terms of the quality of jobs that were to be created under the program. Mayor Piercy thanked all individuals who participated in this exemplary effort. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Syrett replied that the language in the ”Build Oregon Responsibly” pledge was extracted from a pre-existing document that the Building Trade Councils of Oregon asked people to sign on to. Mr. Poling thanked all the individuals who participated in the process and said he was pleased that the committee was unanimous in its recommendation before the council. Mr. Kelly informed the council that City Attorney Jerry Lidz confirmed that although he was a part-time instructor for Lane Community College and therefore may have a potential conflict of interest regarding this issue, he could participate in the discussion at this time. Mr. Kelly stated he was pleased that the committee recommended annual reporting on the West Eugene Enterprise Zone. He then pointed out that under current Oregon State laws, companies could receive two-thirds of the tax exemption without meeting the proposed criteria now before the council. He noted that the proposal capped the benefit criteria amount at 25 percent of the tax exemption and that statutorily it could have been set at 33 percent. Ms. Syrett commented that the committee did not debate the merits of changing the percentage from 25 percent. Mr. Kelly opined it would have been useful for the committee to have had such a discussion as the difference between the percentages was a significant amount of money. He asked if there was any possibility of holding an additional meeting of the committee to review the comments put forth by the council and the Lane County Commission. Mr. Braud clarified that the Public Benefit Criteria was limited to the 25 percentile; however, the job cap could realize one-third, which was recommended by the committee. Mr. Kelly questioned if in a mid-sized improvement, there could be a situation whereby hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax exemption was granted due to the difference between the two percentages. Ms. Bettman opined that the stakes were not very high given the 33 percent cap set by the State. She voiced an assumption that in most cases, that cap would supersede the Public Benefit Criteria. Ms. Bettman stated that the job cap would be the key to recovering public benefit and “giving back” to the jurisdictions and the 4J School District. Ms. Bettman questioned why the action before the council was in the form of a resolution rather than an ordinance. City Manager Taylor responded that the Interim Standards were adopted by resolution by both the council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners. He indicated, however, that the adoption of the resolution does not set in motion a public hearing. Ms. Bettman pointed out that new jobs made available through local training and referral agencies do not necessarily ensure that local workers would be hired to fill those jobs. With regard to redevelopment, she noted that individuals who locate within the boundary of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 4 Work Session