CC Minutes - 07/18/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stepping back and maintaining the discussion with the County, adding that he could not see that this would occur while the council was still making an effort to terminate the zone. Councilor Poling reiterated that no one was asking taxpayers to pay for jobs and no one was giving any tax money to companies. He wished to underscore that the enterprise zone provided tax exemptions on improvements to an existing site only. He commented that he did not wish to be part of the legacy that took perhaps the biggest and best economic tool out of the toolbox and tossed it away because of “one sticking point with the County.” He said to throw away the enterprise zone would be devastating to the business community. He felt such a jettison would send a bad message on how the City treated business and took care of its citizens. He could not support the substitute motion. He thanked councilors Pryor and Kelly for the work they had done with County Commissioners Green and Stewart to reach a middle ground but he did not think further discussion, given how immovable the two sides had become, would gain any ground. He suggested that the council step back and try to return to the original proposed motion as it allowed “some breathing room” and local control over an enterprise zone. Councilor Kelly clarified that Councilor Bettman’s motion did not suggest termination of the zone unless the County would not agree to the per job cap. He also wished to point out that, though the City did not hand money to a company per job, it was lost revenue. He said whether one handed the money to a company and it did not give it back or whether it was not handed the money in the first place, it was lost revenue. He said it was only lost revenue if the company left the community entirely if it did not receive the dollar. Mayor Piercy predicted a tie vote. She stressed the importance of having an enterprise zone that worked, but she averred the zone before the council was no longer the “zone we signed up for.” She recalled that when the council voted to move toward termination because the County Commissioners decided not to accept the interim standards passed by the council, she was uncertain she would have voted to terminate at that point had the vote been a tie. She related that she asked councilors Pryor and Kelly to meet with the two commissioners because she thought the enterprise zone was too good to terminate. She thanked Commissioners Green and Stewart for their willingness to meet with the councilors. She said the first issue had been about the number on the job caps and the councilors were willing to make some movement on that. She said the next issue had been the possibility of an optional waiver on the caps and it was thought that there could be agreement on this. She stated that the commissioners called out the “retention piece,” though it had not been subject to discussion previously. She had thought the agreement had been reached. However, she returned to work and the commissioners tossed out the retention part of the agreement. Because of this, she supported Councilor Bettman’s motion to reaffirm the council’s commitment to its original agreement. She predicted that the City and County could still have its enterprise zone. Councilor Solomon asked what the legal implications of Councilor Bettman’s motion were. City Attorney Klein explained that should the motion pass, people would be able to file applications for the enterprise zone because it would be in effect until the date specified. Should there be no motion to discontinue the termination, the City Manager would be required to take steps to terminate it. He was uncertain how long this would take. Councilor Solomon remarked that nothing in the motion encouraged the council to work with the County. Rather, she said, it seemed the motion was an ultimatum to the County to “get on board” or the City would walk away. Councilor Bettman restated the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 18, 2005 Page 16 Regular Session