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

Home Browse Search

was obliged to vote against the amendment as stated and prepared to vote for the original proposal as written. Ms. Smith said she was unclear from subcommittee discussions if greenfields included or excluded infrastructure-ready sites. Mr. Bowerman said it excluded infrastructure-ready sites. He said for simplicity, the exclusion is just for a geographic area, except that it does include the chopped-up, already developed parcels outside of Beltline Road. He said greenfields inside the boundary would be included in the enterprise zone program. Ms. Pierce asked Ms. Edwards why she wanted to remove the language changing the boundary of the previous enterprise zone. Ms. Edwards clarified that her motion meant to keep the first part of the first sentence of the bulleted item: "The boundaries of the Enterprise Zone should follow those of the previous Enterprise Zone." Her motion would strike the rest of the paragraph, beginning with the rest of the first sentence, "except that the North and West Boundary should be Beltline Road." Mr. Kahle noted that Ms. Rygas had stated the motion undid the subcommittee's work. He asked if other subcommittee members felt that way. Mr. Bowerman said he had already answered that by stating he could not vote for the current motion. Mr. Korth said the five subcommittee members could not come to agreement on the Beltline Road boundary. He said he was in favor of including the area north and west of Beltline Road as an important resource for the city. Ms. Smith said the lack of agreement on boundaries reflected her concern, as well. Mr. Rexius said another compromise would be to separate the Greenfield areas such as the Greenhill Technology Park, that already have roads and utilities and are development-ready, from the "true" greenfields along Highway 99, that are not ready. He said it was difficult for him to exclude the development-ready greenfields that are what might invite someone to come to Eugene to do business. However, he said, he was willing to let that go in the spirit of compromise, because if the committee can not agree on a proposal, those outside the committee likely will not agree, either. Ms. Edwards asked if there was interest in Mr. Wanichek's previous proposal to make brownfield development a tax exemption criterion. Ms. Rygas said the subcommittee had learned from staff that the greatest incentives to developers would be the 66.6% State tax exemption, and the 11.1% local exemption criteria were not in themselves strong incentives. Making brownfield redevelopment a criterion would not be a sufficiently strong incentive, she said. Mr. Braud said he wanted to remind the committee that the State of Oregon has rules on local additional criteria that can be adopted for enterprise zones, and he thought many of the criteria as written would be challengeable under State rules and thus needed more work. Mr. Proudfoot said he thought the intent of some of the criteria was right on, but the language was off. He gave items b and f, having to do with certification for sustainable production practices and ISO standards, as examples. He offered to help rewrite problem criteria. Mr. Forbes said if the committee moves forward on the report proposals, Mr. Proudfoot could help staff with final language. Mr. Braud said the City Attorney would review the language, as well. Mr. Forbes asked for a vote on Ms. Edwards' motion. MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 12