Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

thousands of dollars of tax exemption was granted due to the difference between the two percentages. Ms. Bettman opined that the stakes were not very high given the 33 percent cap set by the State. She voiced an assumption that in most cases, that cap would supersede the Public Benefit Criteria. Ms. Bettman stated that the job cap would be the key to recovering public benefit and “giving back” to the jurisdictions and the 4J School District. Ms. Bettman questioned why the action before the council was in the form of a resolution rather than an ordinance. City Manager Taylor responded that the Interim Standards were adopted by resolution by both the council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners. He indicated, however, that the adoption of the resolution does not set in motion a public hearing. Ms. Bettman pointed out that new jobs made available through local training and referral agencies do not necessarily ensure that local workers would be hired to fill those jobs. With regard to redevelopment, she noted that individuals who locate within the boundary of the Enterprise Zone would qualify for five points and that the benefit was not calculated on the number of new jobs created; rather it was calculated on the size of the capital improvement. She concluded, however, that the criteria were welcome as those who receive public money should give back a public benefit. Mr. Pape? voiced appreciation for the efforts put forth by the committee. He referred to Criteria 1, Small Business, and questioned the rationale of the point system. Ms. Syrett explained the system addressed the concern that a smaller business may not be able to reach the wage threshold or provide medical benefits; additionally, it ensured that the program reflects the value of wages and benefits and acknowledged the reality that those applying for the program were smaller, local companies. Mr. Papé? referred to Criteria 8, Construction, and asked if there was consideration given to points for LEED certification. Ms. Syrett responded that that component was not considered by the committee. Mr. Braud added that the State statue stipulated the criteria must be related to the public purpose of providing employment. Mr. Pape? referred to Criteria 6, Redevelopment, and questioned if five points would be allocated in a scenario whereby the City subsidized a company with grant funds. Mr. Braud responded that the Brownfield Grant was limited to the two downtown renewal districts so these areas did not overlap. Mr. Pryor referred to the 33 versus 25 percentile discussion and opined that setting the threshold at 25 points provided a better chance for small businesses to receive an exemption. He pointed out that many small businesses cannot reach even that limit due to their inability to meet some of the strict criteria. Ms. Taylor opined that the Enterprise Zone was not helpful to the community, partly due to the fact that the State statues prohibited meaningful standards, such as those associated with the environment. She surmised that using a median wage of $14.95 per hour would be confusing for the public. Ms. Taylor also pointed out that there were many struggling small businesses that were not in the Enterprise Zone and would therefore be forced to pay their full tax base. She concurred with Ms. Bettman that it would be relatively easy to gather points and divert tax money which could otherwise be utilized for the City’s General Fund. Ms. Taylor asked if the wage standards could be improved upon. Ms. Syrett pointed out that the standards apply to all full-time employees of eligible businesses and that a minimum threshold had not been set. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 4 Work Session