Item B - Econ.Dev.Comm. Recomm. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the boundaries of the previous enterprise zone to those listed in the second bullet point of the subcommittee report, primarily excluding properties beyond Beltline Road. He said this resulted from a discussion of whether greenfields should be included, and drawing the boundary line at Beltline Road excludes the greenfields. He said there also seems to be agreement that a 66.6% initial tax exemption for any qualifying company is palatable. Finally, he said, the list of criteria in the report was not exhaustive, but do include the elements subcommittee members thought were important. Ms. Rygas added that the enterprise zones need to be inviting businesses in and also directing businesses to some extent, and the suggestion to exclude greenfields is one way to do that. She said the subcommittee is not saying it does not want the greenfields developed, but that there be more reward for infilling the places that are not necessarily the easiest to develop. She said the items in the criteria list are offered as module components that could qualify for up to an additional 33.3% tax exemption. She said she had some additional proposals having to do with worker benefits, and the subcommittee ran out of time to discuss them. She said she would like to see one criteria included on wages, to make the point that the City is looking for businesses that will offer a growth track for employees, as opposed to low wage, dead-end jobs. Mr. Korth asked Ms. Rygas if she had specific recommendations she wanted included. She said the one simple recommendation she would make is that job wages need to be above the county median wage. Mr. Rexius noted that the references to "mean wage" in items g and h of the potential criteria should say "median wage." Mr. Korth said the subcommittee saw the potential criteria for an extra 33.3% exemption as value statements that set the tone for what was wanted in Eugene, but the subcommittee also wanted enough criteria components, at 11.1% each, that the 33.3% total tax exemption was very attainable. He said the subcommittee did not come to agreement on greenfields, many of which he believed were infrastructure- ready. He said the subcommittee wanted to bring the greenfields discussion to the larger committee. Ms. Pierce said she was confused about the percentages. Mr. Rexius said anyone who qualifies with the four State enterprise zone requirements gets a 66.6% tax exemption. If a developer wants the additional 33.3% tax exemption, the developer would go to the list of Eugene criteria and find three things to do. Ms. Pierce, referring to item g, asked how benefits could be compared to wages and how an employer would find out the Lane County mean wage level. Subcommittee members clarified they had meant median wage level, not mean. There was discussion among committee members and staff on whether either mean or median Lane County wage or benefits levels were published. Ms. Pierce pointed out that of the top fifteen employers in Lane County, 12 or 13 were government employers, which meant that a private business would have to compare its wages and benefits to government wages and benefits, which were probably the highest in Lane County. Mr. Re'Voal said industry-only wage and benefit information was available that excluded government. He said median information was available for the entire state and for the Portland metro area; he was not sure if it was available for Lane County. Mr. Wanichek said he thought overall the subcommittee's report was a wonderful compromise, and he would support the recommendations, except that he wanted greenfields included. He suggested adding local companies on payroll tax rolls to item a. Ms. Rygas said a page of her e-mail to the subcommittee was being distributed that contained her suggestions for additional criteria that did not get incorporated in the report. She said she wanted to MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 10