Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ortiz asked for an explanation of the County commission's action. Mr. Braud replied that the City and County were asked to act on two things relative to placeholder interim policy and interim criteria for the new enterprise zone scheduled to start on July 1, 2005. He said the first was re-enacting the previous enterprise zone's public benefit criteria, adopted in 1997, as placeholder criteria and the second was introduction of the concept of capping the tax exemption. He said the City and County had not previously discussed a dollar amount for the cap but at the council's June 27, 2005, meeting, staff proposed a cap of $30,000 over three years for each new job that was created. He said the council agreed to both the 1997 criteria and a $30,000 cap at its meeting; the County accepted the 1997 criteria, but not the cap. Ms. Ortiz expressed frustration that the County had not accepted the cap. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to substitute the following motion: "I move to repeal Resolution 4832 and to direct the City Manager to withdraw the City's application for designation of the West Eugene Enterprise Zone or, if it is too late to withdraw the application, to take the steps necessary to terminate the City of Eugene's sponsorship of the West Eugene Enterprise zone and, in addi- tion, that the City Council designate a representative to contact the Lane County Board of Commissioners to begin working together to craft an application for des- ignation of an enterprise zone for West Eugene that can achieve Board consensus and City Council support, with the goal of filing the application at the next time the State accepts such applications. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments on the motion. Mr. Kelly stated that the motion made by Ms. Bettman reflected his feelings and he would support it. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz that it was disappointing the County commissioners were unable to accept a per-job cap on the tax benefit on an interim basis. He gave the example of an automated computer center that might have a large capital outlay while creating few jobs, but could be fully exempt from property taxes without the cap. He reminded everyone that during discussions of the enterprise zone, many people in the community spoke specifically about per-job cap. He disagreed with Mr. Pryor's statement that the City was 90 percent of the way to an enterprise zone as the per-job cap, unlike the other criteria, was a part of the application to the State because it was incorporated in the resolution. He objected to the statement that the council would look foolish. Mr. Poling asked if it was possible for a jurisdiction to unilaterally either withdraw the application or withdraw from the enterprise zone or if a joint resolution by both parties be required. Mr. Lidz replied that he did not know the answer as the issue had just been raised. His general sense, without having an opportunity to consult the statutes, was that if it took two parties to file the application and one withdrew, the application was effectively withdrawn. Mr. Braud said that termination might require both of the joint sponsors but thought the statutes were probably silent on withdrawing an application because it had never occurred. City Manager Taylor added that the enterprise zone designation was granted on June 28, 2005, by the State and did not go into effect until July 1, 2005. He said that staff would pursue whatever policy direction the council adopted; however, his recommendation was that in addition to that action, in order to ensure that an enterprise zone did not go into effect on July 1 with nothing but State standards, the council adopt the interim standards accepted by the County. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 29, 2005 Page 4 Work Session