CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Enterprise Zone would qualify for five points and that the benefit was not calculated on the number of new jobs created; rather it was calculated on the size of the capital improvement. She concluded, however, that at least the criteria provided a welcome dialogue about how public subsidies should reap public benefits. Mr. Pape? voiced appreciation for the efforts put forth by the committee. He referred to Criteria 1, Small Business, and questioned the rationale of the point system. Ms. Syrett explained the system addressed the concern that a smaller business may not be able to reach the wage threshold or provide medical benefits; additionally, it ensured that the program reflects the value of wages and benefits and acknowledged the reality that those applying for the program were smaller, local companies. Mr. Papé? referred to Criteria 8, Construction, and asked if there was consideration given to points for LEED certification. Ms. Syrett responded that that component was not considered by the committee. Mr. Braud added that the State statue stipulated the criteria must be related to the public purpose of providing employment. Mr. Pape? referred to Criteria 6, Redevelopment, and questioned if five points would be allocated in a scenario whereby the City subsidized a company with grant funds. Mr. Braud responded that the Brownfield Grant was limited to the two downtown renewal districts so these areas did not overlap. Mr. Pryor referred to the 33 versus 25 percentile discussion and opined that setting the threshold at 25 points provided a better chance for small businesses to receive an exemption. He pointed out that many small businesses cannot reach even that limit due to their inability to meet some of the strict criteria. Ms. Taylor opined that the Enterprise Zone was not helpful to the community, partly due to the fact that the State statues prohibited meaningful standards, such as those associated with the environment. She surmised that using a median wage of $14.95 per hour would be confusing for the public. Ms. Taylor also pointed out that there were many struggling small businesses that were not in the Enterprise Zone and would therefore be forced to pay their full tax base. She concurred with Ms. Bettman that it would be relatively easy to gather points and divert tax money which could otherwise be utilized for the City’s General Fund. Ms. Taylor asked if the wage standards could be improved upon. Ms. Syrett pointed out that the standards apply to all full-time employees of eligible businesses and that a minimum threshold had not been set. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4865 establishing local criteria applicable in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone; further, to adopt a Public Benefit Scoring System; and repeal Resolution 4851. Ms. Bettman referred to the Job Creation Cap, as noted in the AIS. She questioned if the Enterprise Zone was adopted by ordinance and further if the cap was embedded in that document. Mr. Braud replied that the Enterprise Zone was adopted by resolution and the cap was embedded in that resolution as a result of the action taken in August to adopt the Interim Local Criteria. Ms. Bettman pointed out that an amendment to a resolution could be adopted by a simple majority of the council, whereas an ordinance automatically created the opportunity for a public hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to put forth a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to bring back an ordinance to the City Council MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 5 Work Session