Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon said she would support the motion but asked for clarification on the issue of the railyard property. She said the enterprise zone could be a potential incentive to redevelop the railyard and asked if the boundary could be expanded to include the railroad property if it was initially excluded. Mr. Braud said the boundary could be changed by council resolution and approval by the State. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, City Manager Taylor said that job standards would be developed after the resolution to approve an application submission before the April 25, 2005, deadline and before July 1, 2005, when the enterprise zone went into effect. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion by substituting Attachment A for Attachment B, minus the railroad yards. Mr. Pap6 said redevelopment of brownfields was a worthy goal, but he was concerned about the message sent by limiting the enterprise zone to brownfields. He said that the cost to redevelop brownfields was much higher than to develop greenfields and the zone boundary in Attachment A had been vetted by people involved in economic issues in the community. Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Kelly said there was no message that development was only wanted in brownfields; the message was that extra incentives would be provided for brownfield development. He argued that the large greenfield sites were the most desirable sites available because of the limited supply of buildable land and least in need of incentives. He said the incentives would help offset the greater expenses of developing brownfields. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks and said she intended to vote against the amendment for those reasons. If the amendment passed, she would vote against the main motion to create an enterprise zone if it included greenfields. She did not think it was strategic to provide tax breaks for development of premium sites. Mr. Poling asked if Attachment B, minus the railroad properties, included any greenfields. Mr. Braud said that there was some vacant ground with services and infrastructure, such as the Greenhill Technology Park, but those were infill opportunities, not greenfields. Mr. Pryor affirmed his desire to make the zone as effective a tool as it could be, but if obtaining the support of a majority of the council meant compromising on the boundary issue he was willing to support the original motion. Mr. Pap6 said he wanted to see greenfields included in the enterprise zone but realized that the boundary could be expanded at a later date. He asked if there were any limitations on the size of the zone. Mr. Braud replied that the statute placed limitation on the size but the City's proposed boundary was well below the size limits and afforded sufficient opportunity for future expansion as discussed. He said a boundary amendment would require resolutions from the City and the County and approval by the State; the process was relatively quick. Mr. Pap6 asked what percentage of actual land available was represented by the land removed from the zone boundary under the main motion. Mr. Braud said that the greenfields represented 786 acres of the 5,946 acres in the proposed boundary; the restricted boundary would include 5,160 acres. He referred to MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 8 Work Session