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