Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling remarked that County commissioners had not indicated in their discussion that they were opposed to an enterprise zone. He disagreed with Ms. Bettman's statement that there was a transfer of tax dollars involved. He said there was an exemption for three years on the improvements only, after which period the City would receive full tax revenue from that property. He said that it was companies that would make large investments in their facilities, regardless of how many people were hired, that would most directly benefit the City through an increase in property tax revenues. He questioned whether the substitute motion could be legally accomplished. Mr. Lidz noted there were several procedural issues underlying the council's discussion and suggested that before voting the council pause and review whether the motions on the table accomplished what the council wanted. He said that one possibility was a vote to amend the resolution from June 27 to align the City with the County, even if the council then wanted to vote to withdraw the application so that if withdrawing the application was ineffective, there would be some standards in place rather than none at all. Ms. Bettman stated that it was better to have no interim standards so there was pressure to develop some type of consensus around what the community wanted. She said that weak interim standards could be there forever because the County had no incentive to change them and it would be counterproductive to vote to be consistent with the County. She said there was another application process in a year and the council had already discussed the possibility of not making an application until then; withdrawing the application would mean the City started with a "clean slate" and the County would have incentive to collaborate in order to have an enterprise zone. She said the resolution included the cap and questioned how the City could move forward with an enterprise zone that did not have a cap and was therefore inconsistent with the resolution adopting the enterprise zone. She said the City was not at 90 percent; it was worse off than being at "square one." She said that the council's ability to cooperate was destroyed if it went forward with an enterprise zone with County-dictated benefits. Responding to Mr. Kelly's objection, Mr. Pryor said he was not implying the council was foolish but rather suggesting that others might have that perception if the City submitted an application and then withdrew it. He said he had heard no disagreement between the City and the County with regard to having an enterprise zone, the value of the 1997 standards, or the timing or submitting of the application. He said it appeared the disagreement boiled down to one element, the job cap, and the perception that the council and County commissioners did not trust each other enough to do the right thing on a job cap. City Manager Taylor agreed with Mr. Pryor's assessment. He said the problem was that the County felt if it adopted the job cap it would be the default standard and there would be no incentive for the council to modify it through a community involvement process; conversely, the council felt if a job cap was excluded there was no incentive for the County to consider the concept. He said that lack of opportunities to discuss the job cap with the County had also contributed to the problem. Mr. Pryor said it appeared that while the County was aware there were discussions of a cap, the specific amount of $30,000 was new information. He asked if the sticking point was the job cap, the amount of the job cap or the timing of when the information was presented to the County commissioners. Mr. Braud said it was timing and the County's desire to take more time to consider whether a cap was a good idea and jointly work on the concept instead of putting something on the table late in the process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 29, 2005 Page 5 Work Session