Laserfiche WebLink
3. Review Final Report <br /> <br /> Ms. Fifield agreed with the suggestion that the committee do a page-by-page review of the draft <br /> final report. In response to a question from Ms. Pierce about how to deal with a new chapter on <br /> an Enterprise Zone, Mr. Forbes suggested that the committee discuss that issue first. <br /> <br />In response to a process question from Mr. Rexius, Mr. Forbes noted that any motion or decision <br />could be passed with a 75 percent majority of the members present. <br /> <br />Denny Braud, Planning & Development Department staff, joined the members for the discussion <br />of an Enterprise Zone. He gave a brief summary of the memorandum provided to the members <br />on a technical analysis of an Enterprise Zone. He said that the committee had said that it was <br />interested in recommending an Enterprise Zone with certain added conditions. Businesses <br />eligible for an Enterprise Zone tax exemption provided under the Oregon Enterprise Zone <br />statutes would be required to make an annual public benefit contribution to the zone sponsor <br />equal to 33 percent of the tax exemption. Reductions in the amount of the public benefit <br />contribution could be achieved through various conditions. Mr. Braud said he consulted with the <br />City Attorney and received the following reply.' ... the condition requiring an annualpublic <br />benefit contribution... (up to 33 percent of the tax exemption).., is legally defensible if the City <br />is limited to using the recaptured funds only for uses that are reasonably related to providing job <br />opportunities. To be more easily defensible, the proposed standards should also be shown, <br />perhaps through findings, to reasonably relate to creating jobs. In addition, the standards <br />should be reconsidered and, if necessary, redrafied to address or eliminate the concerns <br />described above. The City Attorney continued to point out that most of the committee's <br />proposed standards, i.e. the ways in which the contribution may be reduced, appear to be <br />difficult to measure or to demonstrate compliance. <br /> <br />Mr. Rexius asked if the whole Enterprise Zone proposal would be denied by the State because of <br />one indefensible criterion or if there would be an opportunity to delete or change the criteria. <br />Mr. Braud said that the state would not deny the zone application based on local criteria, and he <br />thought there would be a chance to change the criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Braud to explain the State's position on allowing agencies to have <br />some flexibility in developing an Enterprise Zone. Mr. Braud said that the State rules said that a <br />sponsor could not reduce the financial benefit to a company by more than one third. He said that <br />the State did not want a program created that appeared to provide a tax incentive and then <br />allowed more than one third of that incentive to be taken away. <br /> <br />Mr. Korth asked if the committee was in agreement that the following additional conditions <br />listed on page 7 of the memorandum were the ones with which the committee was comfortable: <br /> <br /> a. Attractive wages <br /> b. Employee benefits <br /> c. Job training and advancement opportunities <br /> <br />MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />