Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman indicated she was willing to postpone the matter to the regular meeting. <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Economic Development Committee Recommendation on an Enterprise Zone <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor stated that the issue before the council was whether to submit an application for an <br />enterprise zone before the April 25, 2005, submission deadline and if an application was submitted, what <br />was the direction of the application. He introduced Denny Braud, staff with the Community Development <br />Division. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor declared that based on the City's previous experience with an enterprise zone, it was wrong to <br />act and more time should be allowed for public input as the community became aware of the concept. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to postpone the item and conduct a public hearing. The <br /> motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that the question before the council was whether an application for an enterprise zone <br />should be made; the State might or might not approve the application. He asked if the enterprise zone would <br />have a ;'claw back" provision to require a business to pay back the tax from which it was exempted if it was <br />out of compliance. Mr. Braud said state statutes include a "claw back" provision that require a business <br />that failed to meet its job creation obligations during the three-year period to repay the taxes from which it <br />was exempted. As an example, he said that HMT Technology Corporation was required to repay a portion <br />of its tax exemption under the City's previous enterprise zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that Union Pacific Industrial Development was considering leasing property to tenants for <br />rail-related uses such as a container facility and asked if that use would be eligible for enterprise tax <br />exemption. Mr. Braud replied that it would as the basic test was whether an operation served other <br />businesses and a container facility would meet that test. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly acknowledged Ms. Ortiz's concerns regarding inclusion of the railyard property within the <br />enterprise zone until master planning around the railyard had occurred and noted that enterprise zone <br />boundaries could be expanded at a later date to include that property and related eligible uses like a <br />container facility, once a master plan was completed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked ifHMT had repaid taxes and reimbursed the City for infrastructure and staff time. Mr. <br />Braud said that the statutes only addressed the enterprise zone tax exemption and HMT had repaid <br />approximately $471,000 for the period in which the default occurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the "claw back" provision in State statutes enabled the local jurisdiction to request <br />payback of taxes if the business defaulted. Mr. Braud replied that the provision enabled the tax assessor to <br />collect taxes based on non-performance and payback was automatically required. <br /> <br />In response to questions from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Braud said that the City's application would be competing <br />with applications from Madras and Harrisburg. He said that job quality standards should be in place before <br />the enterprise zone was created and if the City's application was successful, that date would be July 1, 2005. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 7, 2005 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />