HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B - Econ.Dev.Comm. Recomm.EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Economic Development Committee Recommendations
Meeting Date: August 9, 2004 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Tom Coyle
www. cl. euget~e, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-6077
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This work session has been scheduled so the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic
Development can be forwarded to the Mayor and City Council. A letter of transmittal and the report of
the committee have been included as attachments A and B.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
Over the last 25 years, the City has developed economic strategies to respond to changing economic
circumstances. In summary the following have occurred:
· 1981 - Six-Point Program for Economic Diversification
· 1982 - Action Plan (developed to carry out the objectives of the Six-Point Program)
· 1985 - Action Plan (the 1982 Action Plan was updated to reflect changing conditions of the local
economy)
· 1988 - Economic Development Strategic Plan
· 1994 - Council Committee on Economic Development
· 1998 - Growth Management Policies
A more detailed summary can be found on pages 3 and 4 under the "History of Economic Development
Policies in Eugene" section of the Final Report and Recommendations (Attachment B).
Policy Issues
Will the Eugene City Council adopt the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic
Development?
The recommendations in support of new tools are:
· The City Council should support and contribute to a regional buildable lands analysis of
available commercial and industrial land that is consistent with state requirements and that earns
broad public support. The inventory should include vacant and underutilized land, and identify
the potential for assembling small parcels to create larger parcels.
· The committee recommends that Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code be made simpler, and the
following guiding principles should be applied to its review and revision. Additionally, the code
should be reviewed on an annual basis.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S040809B.doc
1. Intuitive. Staff and the public find the code difficult and confusing, and it is likely more
complex than it needs to be to achieve the City's goals. A thoughtful audit of the
effectiveness of criteria and standards should be done to measure their value.
2. Adaptable. At this time, the City's code is 'one size fits all.' It could be more flexible
and adaptable on a project-by-project basis. Establishing flexible and adaptable tools
would allow City staff to better respond to challenges and issues that come up during the
development process.
3. Enabling. Entrust staff to carry out policies and objectives by utilizing professional
expertise. Empower staff to use creative problem solving to achieve set policies and
goals. Provide the framework for bounded delegation. Allow staff to make practical,
rational decisions on common sense matters. Common-sense requests by applicants often
require exception processes and may be burdensome.
4. Logical. There should be a discernible path from the standards and criteria to the
objective the City is trying to achieve. Make it make sense. Every time we propose
amendments to the code we should ask ourselves the questions 'what issue are we trying
to address, and what problem are we trying to solve?'
5. Strategic. Having a code that is less detail oriented and more form-based with adjustable
processes that allow more responsiveness to staff, developers, and neighbors about how
to achieve goals and policies can allow staff to be more open to negotiations and hands-
on problem solving.
6. Fair. The code must recognize there will be a variety of different stakeholders needs that
must be met. Negotiations, compromise, balance, and consensus building must be
incorporated into a code revision process and ongoing code applications in order for the
code to embody the diverse values of our community.
· The City Council and Budget Committee should fund a facilitator to assist businesses with
expansion, coordinate multi-agency review of development permits, and assist in developing
methods and policies to help streamline the permitting process.
· The committee recommends that the City of Eugene establish an Enterprise Zone. Its boundaries
should include the previous West Eugene Enterprise Zone properties, plus a relatively small
amount of adjacent industrial-zoned properties that were not included in the previous zone. An
eligible firm would receive 100% of the Zone's tax benefits if it expanded on existing,
redeveloped, brownfield, or infill sites. Eligible firms would receive 67% of the tax benefits if
the new investment occurred on a greenfield site (Oregon Administrative Rules preclude
reduction of the tax exemption benefit by more than one-third). Those firms building on
greenfield sites could receive up to 100% of the tax benefits if they meet additional criteria
related to attractive wages, employee benefits, job training and advancement opportunities, job
retention, and job programs that assist disadvantaged workers.
The recommendations in support of existing tools are:
· Infrastructure. An important role of government is to increase economic capacity by improving
the quality and efficiency of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water and sewer systems,
airport and cargo facilities, energy systems, and telecommunications. The Committee agreed
that infrastructure is one of the most important things that a local government provides, and it is
important to acknowledge that the City should continue to support its infrastructure systems.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S040809B.doc
· Urban Renewal. The committee discussed the importance of Urban Renewal as an active
redevelopment strategy. The committee also generally discussed the potential uses of urban
renewal to encourage redevelopment beyond the existing district. Urban Renewal Districts are a
powerful tool for economic development. A subcommittee was formed to explore how this tool
has been and could be used in Eugene, looking at boundaries, governance models, and
reinvestment strategies. Although the subcommittee produced no recommendations, the
members agreed that these issues warrant further study.
Council Goals
This issue relates to several previous council goal statements from 2003-2004: (1) Sustainable
Community Growth and Change, and (2) Healthy Natural and Built Environment.
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
If the City Council approves the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic
Development there would be financial considerations which would need to be determined for the
following: 1) financial contribution and support to process a regional buildable lands analysis and 2)
prioritizing, finding, and approving budget monies to fund a facilitator position for business assistance.
Other Background Information
At the January 2004 State of the City address, Mayor Torrey noted his intention to address the issue of
economic development in the City of Eugene. He requested that a committee be formed to discuss
economic development issues and to develop solutions and strategies for a more vital community. The
committee was charged with evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of City policies for achieving
Eugene's broad economic goals, and providing specific recommendations to the City Council as to how
to best achieve those goals. A diverse group of community members were invited to participate on the
committee (committee members are listed on page 1 and 2 of Attachment B). At the initial meeting on
March 8, 2004, Mayor Torrey met with the group and related the following charge:
· Review the previous plans from 1981 through 1998;
· Identify elements that are still relevant;
· Make suggestions for adjustments where needed;
· Identify gaps and suggest additions and improvements;
· Reach out to diverse points of view in crafting recommendations;
· Call on a broad range of individuals to provide input and suggestions on matters relating to
Eugene's economic development; and
· Submit a final report with recommendations to the Eugene City Council.
The committee as a whole met regularly since the initial meeting of March 8 on the following dates:
April 5, April 20, May 3, May 24, June 14, June 28, and July 9, 2004. Copies of the agendas and
minutes from these meetings have been included as Attachment C. Subcommittees met on May 7, May
10, June 1, and June 9, 2004. The committee received numerous documents and reports to review as
background in preparation for their work. A list of those materials is included as Attachment D.
Timing
At his State of the City address, Mayor Torrey indicated that it was his hope that Eugene's elected city
officials would adopt an updated economic development strategy before December 1, 2004.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S040809B.doc
OPTIONS
The City Council may:
1. Adopt the report as written;
2. Make recommended changes to the report and adopt the report as amended; or
3. Not adopt the report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the report and committee recommendations as written.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt the report as written and specifically to adopt the recommendations in support of new
tools as follows:
· Provide contingency funding for a commercial/industrial land study as proposed by the Lane
Metro Partnership.
· Direct the Planning & Development Department staff to apply the principles noted under the
Policy Issues section of this AlS to promote simplification of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code and
to provide an annual review of the code.
· Direct the Planning & Development Department Director to proceed with a service level
adjustment to fund a business facilitator position in fiscal year 2005-06.
· Direct staff to proceed with application to establish an Enterprise Zone consistent with Oregon
guidelines and timeframes.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Transmittal Letter
B. Final Report and Recommendations
C. Agendas and Minutes
D. List of reports and documents reviewed by the committee
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Tom Coyle
Telephone: 682-6077
Staff E-Mail: tom.g.coyle~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S040809B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
TO: Mayor Torrey and City Councilors
FROM: Kathy Smith, Chairperson
DATE: August 9, 2004
RE: Committee's Recommendations
On behalf of the Committee on Economic Development, I am forwarding you our report and
recommendations.
The Committee was formed to "review past economic development strategic plans, identify
elements that are relevant today, and identify gaps and areas of opportunity for
improvement." We were called upon to move quickly to agreement on a few key actions that
could be accepted by the City Council and could have immediate effects on economic
development in Eugene. The City Council charged the Committee with reaching 75%
agreement on the recommendations. We achieved that goall
Our report is attached. If you have only a little time to read, please read the summary,
which highlights our main recommendations. The body of the report more fully explains the
reasoning behind our recommendations.
I and other Committee members will be at your Council work session on August 9 to
answer any questions you have.
On behalf of all the Committee members, thank you for:the opportunity to work on these
important issues. We anticipate you will find our recommendations merit Council action.
ATTACHMENT B
Final Report and Recommendations
Approved by the Mayor's Committee
on Economic Development
July 19, 2004
Presented to the City Council
August 9, 2004
Summary
In January 2004, the Eugene City Council approved the Mayor's request to
establish the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. The City Council
charged the Committee "to provide for reviews of past economic development
strategic plans, identification of elements that are relevant today, and
identification of gaps and areas of opportunity for improvement." The Mayor
called upon the Committee to forward meaningful and specific recommendations
to the City Council for consideration in the fall of 2004.
The charge from the Mayor to the Committee was to move quickly to
agreement on a few key actions that could be accepted by the City Council and
could have immediate effects on economic development in Eugene. The Mayor
acknowledged the history of controversy in Eugene regarding economic
development, and the difficulty of agreeing on policies to encourage economic
development in ways that are compatible with other City goals regarding
environmental quality, public amenity, 'fiscal responsibility, and fairness. Thus, he
did not charge the Committee with creating a complete economic development
plan. Rather, his hope was that the Committee members, whose backgrounds
reflect the diversity of opinions in Eugene, could find some common ground that
could be the foundation for a community-supported economic development
strategy that the City Council coutd adopt.
The Committee met eight times from March through July. It discussed
existing economic policies and different tools that could improve the economic
climate in the City of Eugene. It recommends that the following tools be adopted
by the City Council:
· The City Council should support and contribute to a regional buildable
lands analysis of available commercial and industrial land that is
consistent with state requirements and that earns broad public support. The
inventory should include vacant and underutilized land, and identify the
potential for assembling small parcels to create larger parcels.
· The Committee recommends that Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code be made
simpler, and that it be intuitive, adaptable, enabling to staff, logical,
strategic, and fair. Additionally, the code should be reviewed on an annual
basis.
· The City Council and Budget Committee should fund a facilitator to assist
businesses with expansion, coordinate multi-agency review of
development permits, assist in developing methods and policies to help
streamline permitting process, and make recommendations on addressing
Chapter 9 revisions suggested in the above recommendation.
· The Committee recommends that the City of Eugene establish an
Enterprise Zone. Its boundaries should include the previous West Eugene
Enterprise Zone properties, plus a relatively small amount of adjacent
industrial-zoned properties that were not included in the previous zone. An
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page i
eligible firm would receive 100% of the Zone's tax benefits if it expanded
on existing, redeveloped, brownfield, or infill sites. Eligible firms would
receive 67% of the tax benefits if the new investment occurred on a
greenfield site (City staff interprets the Oregon Administrative Rules to
preclude reduction of the tax exemption benefit by more than one-third).
Those firms building on greenfield sites could receive up to 100% of the
tax benefits if they meet additional criteria related to attractive wages,
employee benefits, ,job training and advancement opportunities, job
retention, and job programs that assist disadvantaged workers.
· Urban Renewal Districts are a powerful tool for economic development.
A subcommittee was formed to explore how this tool has been and could
be used in Eugene, looking at boundaries, governance, models, and
reinvestment strategies. Although the subcommittee produced no
recommendations, the members agreed that these issues warrant further
study.
· The City of Eugene should continue to support quality infrastructure.
The Committee believes the actions recommended here will be individually
helpful for economic development. Given the diversity of opinions about
economic development in Eugene, the Committee recommends these tools as an
important step, and one that affords the City Council a chance of having public
support and implementation.
The details of these recommendations, and the Committee's reasons for
recommending them, are contained in the Committee's report. Supplementary
material referenced in that report provides yet more detail.
Page ii Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ........................................................................... I
BACKGROUND ....................................................................
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ........................................
Purpose ................................................................................ 1
Membership .......................................................................... 1
Activities ............................................................................... 2
HISTORY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN EUGENE ......... 3
RECOMMENDATIONS ............. .~.. ......................................... 5
CONTEXT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 5
Process ................................................................................ 5
Issues ................................. · ......................................... ~ ........ 5
Significant areas of discussion ............................................. 6
RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUPPORT OF NEW TOOLS .......................... 7
1. Buildable Lands InventorY ................................................ 8
2. Land use code .................................................................. 8
3. Business assistance ....................................................... 10
4. Enterprise zone .............................................................. 11
RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUPPORT OF EXISTING TOOLS ................. 13
1. Infrastructure .................................................................. 13
2. Urban renewal ................................................................ 13
CONCLUDING COMMENTS .......................................................... 13
ADDENDUM ......................................................................
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page iii
Background
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PURPOSE
In his January 2004 State of the City speech, Mayor Jim Torrey said that the
City of Eugene lacked a clear economic strategy. He recommended a review of
existing policies and strategies and the adoption of new ones that are consistent
with the economic realities that face the City of Eugene today.
The Mayor, with the support of the City Council, created the Economic
Development Committee and charged it with evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of City policies for achieving Eugene's broad economic goals, and
with providing specific recommendations to the City Council as to how to best
achieve those goals. Specifically, the Committee was asked to review past
economic development strategic plans, identify elements that are relevant today,
and identify gaps and areas of opportunity for improvement. The Mayor called
upon the Committee to forward meaningful and specific recommendations to the
City Council for consideration in the fall of 2004.
This document contains the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on
Economic Development.
As a citizen group, the Committee can only recommend policy changes to the
City Council. It is the responsibility of the Eugene City Council to determine
which of the Committee's recommendations to adopt.
MEMBERSHIP
The Committee that produced this report consisted of fourteen community
members:'
· Tom Bowerman, Farmer's Union Inc.; Down to Earth
· Marcia Edwards, Windermere/Jean Tare Real Estate
· Jim Forbes (Chair), Looking Glass
· Bill Goldsmith, O.U.R. Credit Union; Neighborhood Economic
Development Corporation (NEDCO)
· Don Kahle, Comic News Magazine
· Steve Korth, McKay Investments; Oakleaf Property Management
· Gretchen Pierce, Hult and Associates
~ Though invited to participate, the schedules of Kartar Khasla (Golden Temple of Oregon) and Michael Phinney (Full City Coffee) did not
allow them to participate.
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 "Recommendations Page 1
· Joshua Proudfoot, Good Company
· Marvin Re'Voal, Pacific Benefit Planners
· Rusty Rexius, Rexius Forest By-Products
· Jana Rygas, Citizen Member of the Eugene Budget Committee
· Kathy Smith, KJ Smith Associates
· Ellen Teninty, Economic Consultant
· Craig Wanichek, Sterling Savings Bank
ACTIVITIES
The Mayor's Committee on Economic Development met as a full Committee
eight times between March and July 2004. The eight Committee meetings were as
follows:
1. March 8: Overview of project and the purpose of the Committee.
ECONorthwest described economic development policies and how they
can impact economic growth and City staff described the City's growth
management policies and economic development issues particular to the
City of Eugene.
2. April 5: Guest speakers provided an overview of the economy and views
of local economic development and the factors that affect it.2
3. April 20: Former City staff and elected officials discussed issues specific
to Eugene's economic development. The speakers were chosen because
they had extensive experience with the City of Eugene, and could provide
insight into what past economic development policies were, or were not,
effective. The speakers were asked to discuss the obstacles and
opportunities for economic development in Eugene and what the
Committee could recommend to the City Council2
4. May 3: The full Committee discussed economic development issues and
policies to address them.
5. May 24: The full Committee continued to discuss the policies that can
address economic development issues.
2 Individual speakers and their topics were the following: Tom Potiowsky, State Economist at the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis
spoke about Oregon and Lane County economic conditions, opportunities, and constraints. Jack Roberts of Lane Metro Partnership spoke
about economic development and why it matters. Bob Doppelt of the Program for Watershed and Community Health at the University of
Oregon discussed sustainable economic development. Bob Warren of the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department
described government business assistance programs. Rick Duncan of Duncan and Brown spoke about commercial and industrial land
supply. Bob Bussel of the Labor Education and Research Center at the University of Oregon discussed how the quality of the workforce
and wages affect economic development. Dick Sheehy of Industrial Design and Construction discussed why firms do or do not locate in
Eugene.
3 The following individuals spoke to the Committee: Brian Obie, former Mayor of Eugene. Jim Johnson, former Eugene City Manager.
Lew Bowers, staff at Portland Development Commission and former City of Eugene staff in the Planning and Development Department,
Community Development Division. Hugh Prichard, local realtor. Rich Linton, University of Oregon Vice President for Research and
Graduate Studies and Graduate School Dean.
Page 2 Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
6. June 14: The full Committee continued to discuss the policies that can
address economic development issues.
7. June 28: The full Committee reviewed a draft of the proposed economic
development recommendations.
8. July 9: The full Committee made final edits to its recommendations.
Committee members subsequently approved the final report by email.
Members also formed subcommittees to discuss specific economic
development tools:
· Urban Renewal District Agency: The subcommittee discussed the merits
of creating an independent agency responsible for managing the City's
Urban Renewal district.
· Enterprise Zone: The subcommittee worked to define the geographic
boundaries of a proposed Enterprise Zone, and the criteria businesses
would have to meet to be eligible to receive property tax breaks associated
with such a Zone.
HISTORY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
IN EUGENE
Over the last 25 years, the City haS developed economic strategies to respond
to changing economic circumstances. Economic conditions in the community
have changed as regional and global market forces have shifted. In summary:
· Six-Point Program for Economic Diversification, 1981. The Program
was developed during the timber recession of the early 1980s. This policy
focused on economic diversification and halting the deterioration in the
local economy.
· Action Plan, 1982. The Plan was developed to carry out the objectives of
the Six-Point Program for Economic Diversification. The plan recognized
that the City's role in economic development was best served by focusing
more on long-range goals while acknowledging that some quick steps also
needed to be taken, and that diversification would occur largely through
the expansion of local firms. The plan also recognized that financial
institutions, developers, busiaesses, and private business associations play
a major role in successful economic development.
· Action Plan, 1985. The 1982 Action Plan was updated to better reflect the
changing conditions of the local economy. The Six-Point Plans helped to
establish many successful economic development tools. The Plans helped
create the Business Assistance Team, capitalize the Business Development
Fund, start-up the Willow Creek Park One Industrial Incubator, merger of
City and County job training programs, helped to form the
Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Partnership, streamlined the City's
business development regulations, and created the Permit and Information
Center as a one-stop center.
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page 3
· Economic Development Strategic Plan, 1988. This Plan continued the
City's crucial role in infrastructure development, land use planning, public
safety, and other essential City services. The Strategic Plan specifically
focused on positioning Eugene as a regional center for West and
Southwest Oregon. Key policies in the Strategic Plan included building on
successful strategies that were implemented in the previous Action Plan
and a stronger emphasis on Eugene as a regional center.
· Council Committee on Economic Development, 1994. The City Council
established the CCED to determine what actions, if any, the City of
Eugene should take to promote economic development that benefits its
citizens. The CCED recommended a number of strategies, including
improve the regulatory process, assist businesses, and promote an
adequate supply of buildable sites, among others. Although the City
Council took action to generally support these strategies, a specific action
plan did not emerge for Council consideration.
· Growth Management Policies, 1998. The last economic development
policy action taken by the Council was incorporated within the 1998
Growth Management Policies. Policy # 16 directed that: "Efforts to
diversify the local economy and family wage jobs will focus on small,
local, and environmentally sensitive business. Direct available financial
and regulatory incentives to support these efforts."
Page 4 Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Recommendations
CONTEXT FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
PROCESS
The direction from the Mayor and City Council to the Committee on
Economic Development created some constraints that the Committee had to work
within:
· Finish its task by June 2004 (in fact, the final report was adopted by the
Committee in mid-July)
· Obtain agreement from at least 75% of the Committee members on the
recommendations in the Committee's report to the City Council.
The Committee members were selected to represent a diversity of opinions
about growth, development, policy, and politics. Recognizing the difficulties for
such a diverse group, the Committee decided early on that it had to focus on a
subset of all potential economic development. The Committee simply did not
have time to discuss all the good ideas for economic development. These
recommendations are only some of the potential actions and tools available for
economic development; there are many others the Committee was not able to
discuss.
The recommendations in this section meet the Council's requirement: they
have been approved by at least 75% of the Committee members. That does not
mean that 75% of the members agree that each recommendation is the best
one--it means it is the best one on which they could agree.
The Committee members volunteered substantial time to understanding and
discussing the economic development issues addressed below. Though their
recommendations are advisory (it is up to the City Council to decide whether to
adopt any of them as City policy), it is their hope and intent that the Council will
consider the difficulties of reaching consensus on issues of growth and
development in Eugene, and the Opportunity that the Committee has provided, by
virtue of its diversity and agreement, to make some progress on economic
development strategies by adopting these recommendations.
ISSUES
The Committee worked to identify the problems facing economic
development in Eugene, and what solutions could help. Based on the information
provided by guest speakers and its own experience, the Committee discussed key
issues affecting economic development in Eugene. More than a few people
(though not necessarily a 75% majority in all cases) supported the following:
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page 5
· The City lacks a clear policy for economic development. Committee
members stressed that the City should have a clear, consistent, and
focused commitment to economic development that can remain stable
through business cycles.
· Wages in the community are low relative to state and national averages.
· The City's regulations and land use code are too complex, inconsistent,
and burdensome, and the rules are inconsistently applied.
· Land supply is an important issue for commercial and industrial
development and there is no agreement about the existing supply of land
in Eugene.
· Redevelopment of underused sites should be encouraged.
· Infrastructure is important.
· There are few public financial incentives for new or growing businesses. If
the City had incentives, what should it require in return for the incentives?
What types of businesses should be offered public incentives? The role of
public incentives is controversial in community development.
· The City should support ecologically'sustainable businesses and business
practices.
· Economic development strategies, or lack thereof, have regional impacts,
and policies addressing it should take that into consideration.
· There is a perception--locally and even outside the state--that the City of
Eugene is a place with a policy and pOlitical environment that is
indifferent, if not hostile, toward business and economic growth.
SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF DISCUSSION
The Committee also discussed at some length whether it should move directly
from issues (problems) directly to policy recommendations (solutions), or whether
it needed an intermediate step of developing principles that would provide some
direction for the types of tools to be considered and adopted. It discussed draft
principles but eventually voted not to adopt principles, in part because of time
constraints, and in part because a majority of members believed that they could
get to the heart of their assignment (agreeing on tools) without having agreed on
principles.
At least four issues of importance to many of the Committee members are not
addressed explicitly in the recommendations. The Committee believes some
discussion of these issues is important here to provide context for the
recommendations that follow. Additionally, the City Council should consider how
future policy changes affect these issues:
· Wages. The Committee agrees that one of the fundamental objective of
economic development should be to increase wages for Eugene's citizens.
The Committee discussed language to make incentives contingent on
providing some minimum number of jobs with wages higher than the
countywide median. In the end, problems with definition, measurement,
Page 6 Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
and state law (for Enterprise Zones) kept the Committee from
recommending specific policies targeted at wages. Nonetheless, it wants to
make clear to the City Council, and to City staff that may eventually
implement Council policy, that creating stable jobs that provide good
wages and/or opportunities for skill development should be an important
goal or principle for economic development. The community is made up
of people with a wide variety of skill sets and there should be employment
opportunities for all levels of skills, and opportunities to acquire new skills
and move up the wage ladder. It is the Committee's hope that several of its
recommendations below (e.g., regarding incentives and business
assistance) will be implemented in a way that causes more jobs with better
wages to be created.
· Sustainability. The Committee discussed sustainable businesses. At a
broad level there is agreement that businesses that do not pollute, that deal
responsibly with waste, that create products or processes that help
conserve natural resources and e.cosystems, and that reuse materials and
land are very desirable businesses for Eugene. The difficulty, which
proved insurmountable in the time available, was to define sustainable
businesses in a way that would allow them to be identified for special
policy treatment, and to agree on whether special treatment for such
businesses (if they could be identified) was the most effective direction for
encouraging job growth.
· Perceptions matter. Whether based on an objective evaluation or not, once
businesses believe that a city has policies, elected officials and staff that
are anti-business, then that city will have a problem in the area of
economic development. At some level, that is the perception some Eugene
businesses and business organizations have of Eugene. The Committee
does not have a recommendation aimed directly at changing that
perception. Rather, it believes that the other actions it recommends, if
adopted, would address some specific problems cited by the business
community.
· Local revenue impacts. The Committee worked to identify economic
development tools that would create a net gain for the community. As the
Committee discussed different tools, it considered whether the cost of the
tool, such as a tax break to a firm, would in the long-term generate more
revenue for the City than it would cost the City. The Committee aimed to
find actions that would have a positive fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUPPORT OF NEW TOOLS
This section describes the actions the Committee recommends the City
Council take to further economic development in Eugene. Each recommendation
has three subsections, which describe the problem, possible solutions, and the
final recommendation of the Committee.
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page 7
1. BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY
THE PROBLEM
In the context of economic development, land is a fundamental input for new
and growing firms. Land provides the physical foundation upon which buildings
are constructed and the production process occurs. To be effective, communities
must have an available supply of development-ready land--appropriately zoned
and with existing utilities and services--and existing buildings to accommodate
the needs of business.
In the context of Oregon's land use laws, expanding developable land supply
is possible, but it is not easy. Local jurisdictions must balance demand for
developable land with demand for open space and environmental quality. State
laws prescribe processes to determine if a City can expand its supply of
developable land. A key step in that process is a strong argument that the City
lacks a 20-year supply of buildable land. A City cannot make that argument
without a thorough understanding of its supply and demand for land.
The Committee found a diversity of opinion regarding the need for land.
Many Committee members argued that there is an inadequate supply of
commercial and industrial land, and the supply of buildable land is dwindling.
The Committee did agree that no change to the land supply can be made without a
better understanding of the facts. The Committee agreed that there is a lack of
agreement about the true supply of commercial and industrial land in the City of
Eugene.
SOLUTIONS
The primary response to land supply issues is to maintain a supply of
commercial and industrial land that meets Oregon land use planning laws and
goals and supports community economic development goals.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should support and contribute to a regional buildable lands
analysis of available commercial and industrial land that is consistent with state
requirements and that earns broad public support. The inventory should include
vacant and underutilized land, and identify the potential for assembling small
parcels to create larger parcels.
2. LAND USE CODE
THE PROBLEM
Local governments and their policies affect the costs of doing business by
providing infrastructure and services, and through regulations, taxes, and
incentives. The City of Eugene's land use code is the City's primary regulatory
tool that affects businesses. Regulations exist to maintain the health, welfare, and
safety of a community. They are designed to make buildings safer, the air cleaner,
Page 8 Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
and a variety of other protections. Firms must work with local bureaucracies to
meet regulatory requirements, and some regulations and processes can be quite
onerous.
The City of Eugene hired Zucker Systems, an outside consultant, in 2003 to
review the Planning and Development Departments' Planning Division (which
interprets and enforces the code) with an emphasis on the land use permitting
process. Zucker Systems reported, that staff and applicants find the code difficult
and confusing, and it is likely more complex than it needs to be to achieve the
City's goals. There are generally large numbers of criteria and standards that
apply to projects and a thoughtful audit of their effectiveness should be done to
measure their value. The 2003 Zucker Report recommended that the City consider
being less prescriptive, streamline various processes, and amend the code
annually.
The Committee agreed that many perceive that the City's regulations and land
use code to be too complex, inconsistent, and burdensome, and the rules to be
inconsistently applied. Many of these problems have lessened in recent years, but
there remains substantial room for improvement. An improved regulatory process
would enhance the experience and image of doing business in Eugene.
SOLUTIONS
The development code could be modified to make it simpler to understand. It
is beyond the scope and available time of this Committee to make specific
recommendations to modify the code, but the Committee agreed to recommend
guiding principles to future changes to the City's code. The Committee worked
with City staff to identify useful guiding principles to improve the City's code.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends that Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code be made
simpler, and the following guiding principles should be applied to its review and
revision. Additionally, the code should be reviewed on an annual basis.
· Intuitive. Staff and the public find the code difficult and confusing, and it
is likely more complex than it needs to be to achieve the City's goals. A
thoughtful audit of the effectiveness of criteria and standards should be
done to measure their value.
· Adaptable. At this time, the City's code is 'one size fits all.' It could be
more flexible and adaptable on a project-by-project basis. Establishing
flexible and adaptable tools would allow City staff to better respond to
challenges and issues that come up during the development process.
· Enabling. Entrust staff to carry out policies and objectives by utilizing
professional expertise. Empower staff to use creative problem-solving to
achieve set policies and goals. Provide the framework for bounded
delegation. Allow staffto make practical, rational decisions on common
sense matters. Common-sense requests by applicants often require
exception processes and may be burdensome.
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page 9
· Logical. There should be a discernible path from the standards and criteria
to the objective the City is trying to achieve. Make it make sense. Every
time we propose amendments to the code we should ask ourselves the
questions 'what issue are we trying to address, what problem are we trying
to solve?'
· Strategic. Having a code that is less detail-oriented and more form-based
with adjustable processes that allow more responsiveness to staff,
developers, and neighbors about how to achieve goals and policies can
allow staff to be more open to negotiations and hands-on problem-solving.
· Fair. The code must recognize there will be a variety of different
stakeholders needs that must be met. Negotiations, compromise, balance,
and consensus-building must be incorporated into a code revision process
and ongoing code applications in order for the code to embody the diverse
values of our community.
3. BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
THE PROBLEM
The attitude behind the implementation of the local regulatory and permit
system is as important as the regulations. Locations that work to assist
development within the context of meeting the community's regulatory mandates
fare better than locations that use their regulatory and permit system to "keep
undesirable things from happening." It is the difference between viewing
businesses as part of the community or an adversary to protect the community
from.
The Zucker report found that the community perceives Eugene as anti-
business. It is considered to be a difficult place to get things done. The report
found that while staff are competent and dedicated, there is a lack of consistency
in interpreting regulations. Applicants report hearing different answers from
different staffers. Permitting staff do not have a problem-solving approach, and
seem to look for ways to say no.
SOLUTIONS
If the problem is as the Zucker report describes, then it requires both a change
in policies and a change in attitudes. Changing the code is the main policy
solution: that recommendation wa.s just described above. Changing attitudes
requires clear policy direction, not only from the revised code, but from Council
and senior staff.
The message should not be that codes are obstacles that staff should work
around. Rather, the codes should be designed to reasonably and efficiently meet
public objectives for quality, safety, and integrity in development and building,
and staff should enforce those codes. But codes can be enforced in different ways,
and the difference can depend on the message from senior staff and policymakers.
City staff at the Planning Division should be looking for a balance between the
most rigid interpretation of the code and a broader interpretation of the purpose of
Page 10 Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
the code and other City policies. There should be some effort to help permit
applicants find ways to fix their development to meet the spirit of City standards.
The Economic Development Committee identified one specific action related
to this problem: the City could create a staff position that would act as a business
facilitator, or ombudsman. An ombudsman would enhance the experience and
image of doing business in Eugene.
An ombudsman's day-to-day role would be to help coordinate the multi-
agency aspect of development. The permitting process requires that applicants
work with different departments that have different goals. The ombudsman would
assist an applicant to navigate through the process, and help negotiate solutions to
permitting obstacles.
The ombudsman would work with all the different departments and divisions
that regulate the development of new and existing sites. The ombudsman would
have the perspective of both an applicant and a City staffer. Because this person
will have a different vantage point from other staff, he or she would have insight
into how to develop methods and policies to streamline the permitting process. It
is recommended that the job description also include time devoted to code
revision recommendations or other systemic changes.
In the long-term, the expenditure on an ombudsman will be cost effective. The
Planning Division generates a large portion of its own budget through permitting
fees. If an applicant decides to not pursue a development because the process is
too cumbersome, that revenue will never be generated. A staff member who
works to keeps these applicants in the system will help the Division continue to
raise permitting revenues.
RECOMMENDATION .
The City Council and Budget Committee should fund a facilitator to assist
businesses with expansion, coordinate multi-agency review of development
permits, and assist in developing methods and policies to help streamline
permitting process.
4. ENTERPRISE ZONE
THE PROBLEM
The City of Eugene has few public financial incentives for new or growing
businesses. There is a perception that Eugene's lack of an Enterprise Zone puts us
at a competitive disadvantage with other jurisdictions that do have an Enterprise
Zone. The problem with the lack of incentives is that neighboring communities do
have them. Eugene competes with other communities in Oregon for jobs.
SOLUTIONS
Governments can offer firms financial incentives to encourage growth.
Financial incentives come in many forms, but all reduce the cost of doing
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page 11
business. Local governments can reduce a firm's tax burden or provide explicit
assistance to a particular project.
To reduce a firm's tax burden, local governments in Oregon are limited to
reducing a firm's property tax burden. They are unable to influence income tax
rates at the local level, and there is no sales tax to adjust. The State of Oregon
allows local governments to participate in the Oregon Enterprise Zone program,
which offers a three-to-five-year property tax exemption for new building,
machinery and equipment investments by qualified businesses located within a
designated area defined by the zone sponsor.
The Committee focused on Enterprise Zones as a financial incentive tool. It is
a tool that can address redevelopment, infill, and wages. It is not the only tool that
can be used to achieve the City's goals, but it is one that has been effective in
Eugene in the past.
The Committee worked to identify ways for an Enterprise Zone to positively
affect wages and to encourage firms to become environmentally sustainable. The
Committee found that about 75% of the group supported the concept of an
Enterprise Zone, but it was much more likely to reach full consensus if the Zone
addressed wages and sustainability~4 The Committee acknowledged during its
discussions that an Enterprise Zone is not an appropriate tool to accomplish all
goals. State statutes appear to be amenable to consideration of wages in
determination of Enterprise Zone benefits for eligible firms. Committee members
agreed to address sustainability by ~ncouraging redevelopment and infill.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends that the City of Eugene establish an Enterprise
Zone. Its boundaries should include the previous West Eugene Enterprise Zone
properties, plus a relatively small amount of adjacent industrial-zoned properties
that were not included in the previous zone. An eligible firm would receive 100%
of the Zone's tax benefits if it expanded on existing, redeveloped, brownfield, or
infill sites. Eligible firms would receive 67% of the tax benefits if the new
investment occurred on a greenfield site (Oregon Administrative Rules preclude
reduction of the tax exemption benefit by more than one-third). Those firms
building on greenfield sites could receive up to 100% of the tax benefits if they
meet additional criteria related to attractive wages, employee benefits, job training
and advancement opportunities, job retention, and job programs that assist
disadvantaged workers.
4 See attached addendum for a description of the Committee's decision process.
Page 12 Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUPPORT OF EXISTING
TOOLS
The Committee found that the City of Eugene has policies in place that
positively impact economic development. Rather than ignore the existing policies,
the Committee decided to acknowledge that these tools matter, and to explicitly
express support for the City's activities.
1. INFRASTRUCTURE
An important role of government is to increase economic capacity by
improving the quality and efficiency Of infrastructure such as roads, bridges,
water and sewer systems, airport and cargo facilities, energy systems, and
telecommunications.
The Committee agreed that infrastructure is one of the most important things
that a local government provides, and it is important to acknowledge that the City
should continue to support its infrastructure systems.
2. URBAN RENEWAL
The Committee discussed the impor, tance of Urban Renewal as an active
redevelopment strategy. The Committee also generally discussed the potential
uses of urban renewal to encourage redevelopment beyond the existing district.
Urban Renewal Districts are a powerful tool for economic development. A
subcommittee was formed to explore how this tool has been and could be used in
Eugene, looking at boundaries, governance, models, and reinvestment strategies.
Although the subcommittee produced no recommendations, the members agreed
that these issues warrant further study.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The Committee was asked by the City Council to identify tools that would
further economic development in Eugene. It was asked to do that in a relatively
short amount of time, and was required to achieve at least 75% agreement on its
recommendations.
The recommendations above are a small subset of the potential economic
development tools available to the City of Eugene. These recommendations cover
the tools that the Committee had time to debate and agree on. There are additional
options and issues associated with economic development that the City could
address. It is likely that with more time and discussion the Committee could have
come to agreement on additional recommendations.
The Committee believes these recommendations are a good starting point.
They are ones where this diverse Committee, after substantial debate and
compromise, could find some agreement. If the Council sees fit to adopt these
recommendations, and if they prove to be as successful as the Committee hopes,
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page 13
then they could lead to some additional policies that the Committee did not have
time to address.
The Committee has completed the task given by the Mayor and the City
Council. It now hands the task back. The Committee can only make
recommendations; the Council can take action that will make the
recommendations of the Committee City policy.
Page 14 Recommendations July 2004 Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Addendum: The Drama of Compromise
The following was prepared by member Don Kahle and approved by
Committee members for insertion as an addendum to the report. It
illustrates the level of discussion and compromise that was typical for
all the recommendations that eventually made it into this report.
In some ways, the Enterprise Zone recommendations represent our best work
and may provide a roadmap for the community-wide discussion of this and many
other economic development issues.
Three members of the larger Committee agreed to explore the issue of
Enterprise Zones after the entire Committee received staff reports on their history
and efficacy in Eugene. The subcommittee returned to the next Committee
meeting with a recommendation that we apply for a new Enterprise Zone using
the state requirements. Several members queried the subcommittee about extra
requirements that might be added to address some of the other desired outcomes
outlined by the Committee. Two of these dissenters agreed to join the
subcommittee and the subcommittee went back to work.
The subcommittee's report at the next meeting was much different-the result
of long discussions about "the bigger picture," phone calls to state regulators, and
further staff inquiries.
City staff returned to the next meeting with legal opinions that many of the
new filters added might not pass muster with the state or might at the least invite
lawsuits, since they did not appear to be directly related to job creation as state
regulations required. All agreed that we must find other ways to promote
sustainability and clustered industries.
One member then offered a motion that the Committee adopt the original
plan. This motion did pass the 75% threshold, but when the additional provisions
regarding salary and infill goals was added back (the provisions deemed safe by
legal counsel), that motion passed without dissent.
This may serve as an example of inviting dissenters into these deliberations
and forging solutions that incorporate the values of a wide range of citizens.
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 2004 Recommendations Page 15
ATTACHMENT C
AGENDA
MEETING 1: KICK-OFF
MARCH 8, 2004
12:00 - 2:30 P.M; :
1. Welcome and introductions Jim Forbes, Committee Chair
2. Purpose and desired outcome Mayor Torrey
3. Introduction of staff Tom Coyle
4. Overview of the process Terry Moore
5. Economic development: definition & issues Terry Moore
6. Economic development in Eugene: Tom Coyle
the institutional structure and the issues
Break
7. Discussion All
8. Next steps and housekeeping All
MINUTES
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Bascom Room--Eugene Public Library
March 8, 2004
Noon
PRESENT:
Committee: Jim Forbes, Chair; Tom Bowerman, Marcia Edwards, Bill Goldsmith, Don Kahle,
Steve Korth, Michael Phinney, Gretchen. P. ierce, Joshua Proudfoot, Rusty Rexius,
Jana Rygas, Kathy Smith, Ellen Teninty, Craig Wanicheck, members;
Staff: Mayor James D. Torrey; Planning and D~velopment Director Tom Coyle; Terry
Moore, Anne Fifield, ECONorthwest, staff;
Guests: City Manager Dennis Taylor; AssistantCity Manager Jim Carlson; Public Works
Director Kurt Corey; Fire and Emergency Medical Services Chief Tom Tallon;
Police Chief Bob Lehner; Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director
Angel Jones; Rob Hankins, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services
Department; Mike Sullivan, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development
Department; City Councilor David Kelly; Chris Nystrom, Eugene Chamber of
Commerce, guests.
ABSENT: Kartar Khalsa, Marvin Re'Voal, members.
1. Welcome and Introductions
Mr. Forbes called the meeting to order and welcomed members of the Mayor's Committee on
Economic Development. At his request, those present introduced themselves.
2. Purpose and Desired Outcome
Mayor Torrey thanked those present for their willingness to serve on the committee. He
acknowledged the difficulty of the challenge facing committee members. He said economic
development issues were frequently contentious in the community. However, he believed the
community must find some agreement about what it was willing to do, or otherwise Eugene
would unnecessarily lose economic development opportunities. Mayor Torrey said Eugene had
a bad reputation in Oregon business circles because of the time it took for the Hyundai
development to occur. Businesses that were not as controversial as Hyundai were concerned
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 1
about locating in Eugene. He thought the committee needed to talk about that issue, as well as
land use, transportation, and other related tissues.
Mayor Torrey raised the issue of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and noted the new prison
would bring the UGB of Junction City within 1-1/2 miles of the UGB of Eugene. He suggested
the outcome of the prison siting process had the opposite impact of what UGBs were intended to
accomplish, which was to leave open spaces between communities. He also noted the issue of
the West Eugene Parkway and, while he acknowledged differences of opinions, suggested that
the community needed to discuss how to proceed with the parkway from this point forward.
Mayor Torrey said if the community could not find a way to address economic development
issues, it would continue to deal with such issues on an ad hoc basis, and he did not think that
represented the predictability needed by businesses. He said that in addition, the community's
neighboring cities needed to know what Eugene intended to do and plan accordingly. For
example, if Eugene intended never to expand its UGB, it should make that clear to those
communities so they could consider the ramifications of that in their planning.
Mayor Torrey called upon the committee to forward a meaningful and specific recommendation
to the City Council for consideration in fall 2004. He emphasized the importance of jobs to the
community, and said he wanted the community's children to. be able to afford to live in the city.
He said that there were many competing interests the committee would have to balance. Mayor
Torrey wanted to see the development of a planning strategy that would allow Eugene residents
to agree on what businesses they wanted to see in the community. He asked the committee to
consider how economic development could be made to work better in Eugene, what steps were
needed to achieve improvement, and how the community could foster economic development
and still retain its quality of life.
Mr. Kelly reviewed the council-adopted charge of the committee, which was to provide for
reviews of past economic development strategic plans, identification of elements that are
relevant today, and identification of gaps and areas of opportunity for improvement. He noted
the City Council's direction that the committee's recommendations be approved by a three-
quarter majority of members present.
3. Introduction of Staff
Staff and Mr. Moore of ECONorthwest, consultant for the committee process, were introduced.
4. Overview of the Process
Mr. Coyle observed that most municipal planning and development departments had core staff
committed to redevelopment and economic development. That was not the case in Eugene,
where there was no dedicated economic development staff and staff's involvement in economic
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 2
development discussions was minimal. He said when the committee was formed, staff sought a
consultant for the process, one that had successfully managed a committee of this type through a
similar process, and had been able to secure the services of ECONorthwest. He noted that Mr.
Moore had recently worked with a similar committee in Portland to develop a series of
recommendations that the City of Portland had subsequently adopted.
Mr. Moore reviewed the staffs recommendation for the committee process, which he
characterized as a committee-driven process that was anticipated to take about six months.
There would be five committee meetings and he anticipated several issues would be processed
through subcommittees. The committee would present its findings to the council at a council
work session, and the council would then begin deliberations. Mr. Moore anticipated the
committee's recommendation to the council would represent a series of specific, practical, and
immediate actions that could be taken, with the results being clearer policy direction and a faster
City response to desirable economic opportunities.
Mr. Moore previewed the meeting schedule and meeting topics.
5. Economic Development: Definition and Issues
Mr. Moore provided the presentation, copies of which were given to committee members. He
contrasted the broad view of economic development, that is, to increase the well-being of the
relevant population, with a more narrow view, job creation, and said the study to be done by the
committee would acknowledge the broad objectives and need to balance objectives for job
growth and business against other objectives. However, it would also focus on the narrow view
of jobs and income. Mr. Moore said the committee may conclude that nontraditional policies for
job growth would work best in Eugene.
Mr. Moore briefly discussed jobs tied to business growth and factors that matter to firms when
considering where to locate. Mr. Moore then reviewed the steps in a typical planning process,
and the typical policies that resulted.
6. Economic Development in Eugene: The Institutional Structure and Issues
Mr. Coyle provided the presentation, copies of which were given to committee members. He
called the committee's attention to the City's adopted growth management policies. Mr. Coyle
also called attention to several recent newspaper headlines related to economic development and
business relocation to emphasize the many issues facing the community, particularly relating to
the availability of vacant developable land. He reviewed the components of economic
development and noted the recruiting and marketing services currently provided by local
government agencies and nonprofit organizations. Mr. Coyle also reviewed a list of providers of
business and financial assistance services, and noted those entities responsible for providing
infrastructure, land use, permitting services, and workforce training and development.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 3
Mr. Coyle emphasized the importance of having clarity about the community's economic
development goals, which was critical to predicting the community's response to economic
development proposals.
Mr. Coyle previewed the agenda for the next meeting, noting it would include presentations by
various state and local experts.
The committee took a brief meeting break. Mr. Kelly left during the break.
7. Discussion
Mr. Forbes called for committee discussion regarding the charge.
Ms. Pierce requested the source of all documents distributed to the committee and the year the
Economic Development Strategic Plan was developed. Mr. Coyle indicated staff would follow-
up via e-mail.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the committee was inviting conflict at the City Council level if it
just promoted job growth without addressing quality of life issues. He wanted the committee to
address those issues in its work.
At the request of Mr. Forbes, Mr. Moore discussed the speakers who would be presenting to the
committee, noting they included State experts who would provide an overview of the state
economic situation and local experts who could discuss jobs and sustainability issues.
Ms. Rygas shared Mr. Bowerman's concerns. While she agreed the committee needed to narrow
its focus, she was concerned the outcome of the committee process would not be productive if it
avoided divisive issues. She also wanted the committee to have information from "new models"
of economic development.
Mr. Wanichek said there were always tradeoffs to consider. He believed that if the committee
was to enter into quality of life discussions, the scope of the effort would become too great. He
said he could focus on economic development and still keep the tradeoffs in mind.
Ms. Pierce asked what problem the committee was charged to solve, and what it was trying to
accomplish. She said she had been involved in similar efforts in the past, but they seldom
accomplished anything because it was unclear what they were trying to achieve.
Mr. Kahle suggested that what the committee was being asked to do had already been done
through the Growth Management Study. He asked what the committee was being asked to do
that was different than that. He asked why economic development was so difficult in Eugene,
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 4
and how much attention should the committee pay to that issue. He requested a copy of the
council's charge to the committee.
Mr. Goldsmith agreed with Ms. Pierce. He asked how the committee knew things were bad, and
what types of indicators and outcomes would inform the committee and the City of that
condition.
Mr. Bowerman thought the committee's charge was very general and thought it should be
narrowed. He said the mayor's remarks gave him a more clear sense of what he desired, which
was a means for the City to address economic development in a better and more clear way. He
referred to Mr. Moore's presentation and suggested that his remarks about the broad and narrow
views of economic development represented the conflict that existed in the community. He
suggested the committee needed to grapple with that issue, but only after the council and mayor
had narrowed its charge.
Mr. Forbes believed that members wanted to do the right thing in a meaningful way. He
suggested the committee was charged to identify the barriers and problems that got in the way of
economic development and prevented the community from i'eaching consensus.
Mr. Moore believed many good points had been made. He suggested the committee could define
economic development more narrowly to narrow its focus. Speaking to the reason for the
process, Mr. Moore suggested that if the City was in a situation where every development
proposal resulted in a policy debate that required the election of a new council to get it resolved,
the City could not be nimble in its response and would be unable to take advantage of new
opportunities. He said the committee could consider if there were things that could be done at a
policy level to resolve that policy debate and create greater predictability for the business
community and City staff attempting to assist it.
Mayor Torrey explained that he initiated the committee prOcess because he believed the City
Council lacked an economic development strategy that could be coherently voiced by all eight
members. He wanted the committee to meet the council's charge and to suggest to the council
ways to improve how business was done in Eugene. Mayor Torrey said the community needed
jobs. Jobs that had been lost had not been replaced. He believed the economy was worth doing
something about, and believed the committee could find solutions to recommend to the council.
He said that he would provide the committee with copies of the council's charge and the minutes
reflecting the council's discussion.
Mayor Torrey emphasized the balance he had sought in both committee members and those who
would make presentations to the committee. He suggested the committee ask the economists it
heard from to discuss Eugene's reputation, and what was needed to overcome it. Did the
community want to overcome it? Did the community want to expand the UGB? If not, it should
state so explicitly, and the committee should recommend that to the council. Mayor Torrey
reiterated that the committee needed to keep in mind what neighboring communities would do,
because the region would continue to grow. He suggested the committee keep in mind the
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 5
implications of compact urban growth and higher densities. He asked the committee to discuss
what the community's economic engine would be, adding it was preferable for Eugene to make
that decision than for another entity to decide for it.
Mayor Torrey noted the impact that the closure of a mill could have on a community such as
Waldport. While Eugene had a broader economic base then Waldport, he believed it needed to
look to the future. Jobs did not just happen. For example, he believed the community needed to
have corporate headquarters, which generally sustained themselves during downtimes. He said
the committee could discuss such strategies and how to make them work. Mayor Torrey asked
the committee to be creative.
Mr. Proudfoot summarized the mayor's remarks, saying he was hearing a request that the
committee consider what the City of Eugene could do to create a more predictable business
environment, and consider what the community in general could do to support economic
development. Mayor Torrey believed that was an accurate summation.
Ms. Rygas said she did not know if there was actual unpredictability or a perception of
unpredictability. She questioned whether the City actually had a marketing problem. She
believed the committee's charge could be narrowed, but questioned if there was consensus on
what that entailed. She thought it important for the committee to keep in mind the broader
picture when reaching policy recommendations, and pointed out that much had already been
done for the committee to build upon.
Mr. Wanichek said the committee needed to discuss its goal to help it focus its charge. He
suggested the goal was jobs creation, which had multiple Objectives. He said the committee
could start by discussing the growth management pOlicies.
Mr. Kahle asked whether discussion of expanding the UGB was within the committee's charge.
He believed the issue had been decided through the Growth Management Study, and if the
committee was to work on "gaps," he questioned whether that was one. Mayor Torrey pointed
out the Growth Management Study was nine years old, and while the community may still agree
its results were viable, he thought the committee should look at everything.
Mr. Moore said he agreed that the committee could not separate the issues from the context.
However, the committee needed to be focused on something it could actually impact. As an
example, he noted the work Portland had done in industrial siting.
As an example of a possible gap the committee might discuss, Mr. Moore referred to Governor
Ted Kulongowski's task force on industrial land, which had identified Portland and Eugene as
potentially having enough vacant land to meet the State's regulatory requirements, but the land
itself was in parcel sizes that were insufficient to attract certain types of industries. The
committee may agree to focus that development to nodes to avoid expanding the UGB.
However, it may also find that even with a 20-year supply of land, it was missing opportunities
because parcels were insufficiently sized. The question became, was there actually enough land?
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 6
He suggested the benefit of the committee process was to potentially bring all parties to the same
answer.
Mr. Moore said the speakers the committee would hear from would all have a broad view and
would discuss that broad view in the context of economic development. The committee would
then decide what to focus on. That focus would inform the subcommittees that were created.
Mr. Moore recommended that when the committee was done, it would tie its recommendations
back to economic development. For example, if it decided to pursue quality of life as a key
issue, the committee should say why preserving and enhancing quality of life was important to
economic development.
Ms. Pierce encouraged members to read the materials they received prior to the next meeting.
She said the previous committee had worked through many of the same issues that had been
raised, and had met for more than a year before reaching a recommendation. She said the work
had been challenging because the committee had kept taking on the balance issues, and she
believed it had developed creative solutions that may still be valid. Ms. Pierce suggested the
committee members review previous plans and studies and indicate where they did nor did not
support a policy as a means to begin the process of identifying gaps.
Ms. Teninty said the committee needed to take a regional perspective because of the
interrelationships between communities. She said the committee needed to understand the
competitive issues involved. She hoped that the experts the committee heard from could speak
to the topic.
Mr. Kahle asked if there was any way to ensure that there was three-quarter council concurrence
with the mayor's summation of the committee's charge. He wanted to have Councilor Bonny
Bettman "on board" with the committee's effort before it began. Mayor Torrey said the council
voted on the charge and authorized the expenditure needed to support the committee. He
reiterated his offer of the council minutes and charge and added he would provide the committee
with a copy of his State of the City speech. Mayor Torrey pointed out the council did not have a
one-councilor veto.
8. Next Steps and Housekeeping
Mr. Moore indicated the packet for the next meeting would be mailed soon. He called attention
to the Web site for the committee process and indicated that there was a portion of the site that
could be accessed by members using a password.
The next meeting was scheduled for April 5, 2004, at noon.
The meeting adjourned at 1:58 p.m.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 7
AGENDA
MEETING 2.' OVERVIEW OF THE ECONOMY AND ISSUES
APRIL 5, 2004
1:00 - 5:00 P.M~
EUGENE PUBLIC' L:IBRARY
BASCOM/TYKESON CONF.ERENCE ROOM
100 W. 10TH AVENUE
WELCOME JIM FORBES, COMMITTEE CHAIR
PRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL EXPERTS
Overview of the economy
1. Oregon and Lane County: conditions, opportunities, and constraints
Tom Potiowsky, State Economist, Oregon Office of Economic Analysis
Views of local economic development
2. What is economic development and why does it matter?
Jack Roberts, Lane Metro Partnership
3. What is sustainable economic development?
Bob Doppelt, Program for Watershed and Community Health at the University of
Oregon
Factors that affect economic development
4. Business assistance
Bob Warren, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department
5. Land supply
Rick Duncan, Duncan and Brown
6. Quality of workforce and wages
Bob Bussel, Labor Education and Research Center at the University of Oregon.
7. Why do firms locate in Eugene (or not)?
Dick Sheehy, Industrial Design & Construction
ORGANIZE INTO SUBCOMMITTEES ALL
MINUTES
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Bascom Room--Eugene Public Library
April 5, 2004
1 p.m.
PRESENT:
Committee: Jim Forbes, Chair; Tom Bowerman, Marcia Edwards, Bill Goldsmith, Don Kahle,
Steve Korth, Michael Phinney, Gretchen Piere. e, Joshua Proudfoot, Marvin
Re'Voal, Rusty Rexius, Jana Rygas, Kathy Smith, Ellen Teninty, Craig
Wanicheck.
Staff: Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle; Ann Munroe, Planning and
Development Department; Terry Moorfi, Anne Fifield, ECONorthwest.
Absent: Kartar Khalsa, committee member.
Welcome
Mr. Forbes called the meeting of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development to order.
At his request, those present introduced themselves.
Mr. Coyle recognized Ms. Munroe for assembling the materials provided to the committee.
Mr. Moore reviewed the agenda. At the request of Ms. Pierce, he added an item regarding a
proposal Ms. Pierce and Mr. Kahle wished to offer the committee.
Presentations from Local Experts
Overview of the Economy
1. Oregon and Lane County: Conditions, Opportunities, and Constraints
Tom Potiowsky, State Economist, Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, provided a PowerPoint
presentation on current economic conditions, opportunities, and constraints in Oregon and Lane
County. Copies of the presentation were provided to members. Mr. Potiowsky noted the official
end of the recession and reviewed some leading economic indicators, which appeared to point to
improvement in general economic conditions in the United States. He discussed Oregon
conditions, noting a conversion over time from a natural resource based economy to a more
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 1
manufacturing-based economy, which was why Oregon felt the recent recession more deeply
than other states. Oregon employment rates were improving slowly. He noted the high
unemployment rate affecting Portland relative to the remainder of the state. He did not expect
huge economic growth from the recovery.
Mr. Potiowsky reported that the wood products industry had recently been experiencing some
growth. However, he expected the sector to decline over time. High tech would outperform the
United States overall, but the industry was maturing in Oregon and efficiencies and outsourcing
would have an effect on employment growth in this area. He noted that per capita income in
Oregon had declined since 1982 with the loss of well-paying timber-related jobs. High tech had
not filled the gap.
Mr. ?otiowsky noted risk factors affecting the economic forecast, which included congressional
action, energy prices, the stock market, and state and local governments.
Mr. Potiowsky shared information regarding population growth in Oregon and Lane County, the
annual unemployment rate, population and nonfarm employment growth, educational attainment
in Oregon compared with the United States average, distribution of households by income
categories, and average annual employment for the years 1990-2003.
Mr. Potiowsky reviewed the top ten growing occupations and top ten declining occupations in
the area.
Mr. Potiowsky anticipated that over time, high tech jobs would decline. He thought little could
be done about outsourcing but did not think its effect would be too harmful. He said the local
area had the ability to be a center for retraining, and the University of Oregon was an asset in that
area. Retraining would be very important if the State was to be competitive.
Mr. Wanichek asked what sectors people would be retrained in. Mr. Potiowsky said that when
high tech manufacturing in Oregon first began, it was based on proprietary and unique
knowledge that could command high prices. Now such technology was at the level of
agricultural commodity status, and once something reached that status, companies must begin to
reduce costs, which led to outsourcing. The sectors to be retrained would likely be those in basic
manufacturing. Oregon's competitive edge in the future would be those who could design and
innovate and communicate and its quality of life.
Mr. Potiowsky emphasized the importance of creating an attractive business environment.
Portland's quality of life did attract people. For example, Oregon, particularly the Portland
metro area, was a net gainer of those in the age group 25-35, and most metropolitan areas were
losing that group, and frequently they were the new entrepreneurs. Ms. Pierce asked how Lane
County was doing in terms of attracting that age group. Mr. Potiowsky believed the county was
doing well.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 2
Ms. Rygas asked what percentage of the work force the top ten growing occupations represented.
She also asked what indicators the State used to portray the shift in what appeared to be the
quality of employment. Mr. Potiowsky said the percentage was growing on a compounded basis
by about 1-½ percent each year. He said the top ten categories represented about 30,000 jobs in
Lane County. The State did not have quality of employment indicators. However, he pointed
out that average household incomes in Lane County had dropped over time. That had a
relationship to other issues, such as consumption patterns and the growth of the two-earner
family.
Mr. Kahle asked if there were jobs that were hard for the State to track. Mr. Potiowsky said
single proprietorships and home occupations can be missed by State surveys.
Ms. Pierce said it appeared Lane County was losing ground in terms of personal income due to
the shift in employment sectors. She questioned what the information was telling the committee.
She continued to be concerned about what problem the committee was trying to solve. She did
not support the kind of job creation that continued the downward trend in personal incomes.
Was the committee going after job growth, family wage jobs, or families in the 25-35
demographic?
Ms. Smith arrived.
Views of Local Economic Development
2. What is Economic Development and Why DSes it Matter?
Jack Roberts, Director of the Lane Metro Partnership, provided the presentation. He focused his
remarks on the traded and nontraded sectors of the economy, saying that frequently discussions
of economic development come down to local versus nonlocal businesses and large versus small,
which were not the most important considerations. Traded jobs brought in more dollars to the
economy and created new wealth. He noted that about one-third of the economy was the traded
sector, and two-thirds was the nontraded sector, or what the community bought and sold to each
other. Those proportions were self-adjusting as growth in the traded sector drove growth in the
nontraded sector, and vice versa.
Mr. Roberts emphasized that the driving force of economic development was the traded sector,
and those were the jobs the region was competing for. He did not think incentives should be
offered to companies that provide nontraded sector jobs. Incentives should be focused on the
traded sector. He said the region was losing traded, or manufacturing, jobs and gaining
nontraded, or service, jobs because of global competition and because for the traded sector,
productivity was key, and its was highly automated. Mr. Roberts said there was no "steady
state," and it was important to replenish lost traded sector jobs.
Mr. Roberts said frequently people encourage economic development dollars to be directed
toward home grown businesses because they believe those businesses do not leave. However,
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 3
those businesses tend to grow and leave. He cited Rosen Products as an example of a company
that was purchased and moved. There was no guarantee such companies would stay. He said
the region needed to compete constantly to keep such businesses in the community. While they
were here, they provided the fundamental basis for a sound, growing economy.
Mr. Roberts said that pay was not always the issue. Education, experience, training, and the
future a j ob provided were also an issue. He said that a measure of the health of an economy was
whether it was creating enough jobs to use all the human resources available. A full range of
employment opportunities needed to be available to residents.
Mr. Roberts spoke of the polarization of the Oregon economy, pointing out that in areas such as
eastern Oregon and the coast jobs in the traded sector were going away and retirees were
increasingly moving in and spending money on consumer goods and services. They drove up the
price of housing, and those who work in the retail sales establishments that serve the retirees
have to live in nearby communities because they can no longer afford to live in places such as
Bend. That was not a healthy situation, and it was increasingly occurring in Eugene. School
enrollment was declining in Eugene and increasing in Springfield and the Bethel area, where
housing was more affordable for families. He thought the community needed to address that
issue of unbalanced growth, and suggested one way was to work aggressively to attract jobs that
provide a range of employment opportunities.
Mr. Forbes asked what would help Eugene compete for traded sector jobs. Mr. Roberts said the
community's biggest advantage was the quality of its work force. He cited affordable utility
costs, transportation corridors, the airport, and quality of life as other assets. The regulatory
environment was important, and Oregon's was not bad. Oregon's quality of life was high and it
was important to companies. Oregon's tax structure was unbalanced and that was a challenge to
overcome. The legislature was working to increase Oregon's ability to compete in the traded
sector by reforming the corporate income tax. The high personal income tax and lack of a sales
tax were disadvantages. The State must have an adequate land supply. He said that incentives
programs for the traded sector were needed but they were not a substitute for the fundamental
things like the work force and infrastructure.
Mr. Kahle noted the pending move of Toby's Tofu to an enterprise zone in Springfield and asked
how Eugene could keep companies in town. Mr. Roberts believed that it would be helpful if
Eugene also had an enterprise zone because it would level the playing field. He said it would be
useful if the two cities had comparable policies and incentives. He noted that while the
enterprise zone was a factor for Toby's, land supply was also an issue that drove the move.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was a benefit to having local homegrown businesses in the
nontraded sector, contrasting Jerry's and Home Depot. In the one case, money remained in the
community, and in the other case the money went to a corporate headquarters in another state.
Mr. Roberts emphasized the importance of local nontraded businesses, and said it was important
to encourage them to stay in the community. He briefly discussed the issue of assistance to local
versus nonlocal, saying that residents had a desire to see local businesses stay and grow. He said
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 4
the question was how to create inducements for local companies in a way that did not create a
protectionist atmosphere and send the wrong message to those from outside the area who wished
to do business here. He did not oppose anything that helped local businesses grow and expand
but said the community needed to be careful about how it did that avoid favoring companies in a
way that distorted the marketplace.
Ms. Pierce asked Mr. Roberts to discuss why past economic development strategies had not
succeeded. Mr. Roberts believed they had. He said the 1990s were good for Oregon and the
community because the community worked at making conditions better. Then the community
got complacent and thought it solved its problems, and the recession was a reminder that the
effort needed to be ongoing. He said the community needed to be prepared to change with the
times, and remember that high tech was not the only answer..A strong and diversified economy
took constant attention.
3. What is Sustainable Economic Development?
Bob Doppelt of the University of Oregon's Program for Watershed and Community Health
joined the committee to discuss sustainable development and its relationship to economic
development. He said most companies operate in a linear manner, taking raw materials and
turning them into goods that often end up as toxic waste. That approach had been very
successful in creating economic well-being but had unintended consequences people were only
beginning to understand. A sustainable development sector was arising because of those
consequences, providing new opportunity for job creation and business development.
Mr. Doppelt said only two percent of the 250 trillion pound annual waste flow was recycled;
most was discarded in the form of pollution, causing toxicity problems in the environment and
impacting the climate. The linear approach had created a discrepancy between the rich and poor.
It created production capacity that exceeded the world's capacity to consume. That drove much
of the globalization that was occurring, as companies try to reduce costs to stay competitive and
find new markets outside the western world.
Mr. Doppelt said another result of the linear approach may be the peak of the oil production
cycle on a global basis. The world would not run out of oil in the near-term, but was on the
downward trend in terms of the oil that was available, leading to price spikes that could have a
significant economic impact.
Mr. Doppelt said that many people were looking at the impacts of the linear approach in an
attempt to mitigate its affect and determine where new job and business opportunities existed.
He said sustainable development could be considered the next evolution in economic thinking.
Those using sustainable practices were attempting to create a circular approach that recycled
materials and reduced toxicity. That required changes in the way raw materials were extracted, a
shift to renewable energy resources, increased energy efficiency, increased materials efficiency,
and recycling and reuse of materials in new products. There were many business opportunities
arising in the upstream, midstream, and downstream components of the economy.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 5
Mr. Doppelt said that companies were finding cost savings through applying sustainable
development practices. In some cases, millions of dollars were involved. Worker productivity
was enhanced because workers feel better about working for firms that employ such practices.
Companies find they get ahead of and avoid environmental regulations by taking steps toward
sustainable business practices. They have more flexibility to respond to changes in the
marketplace. There was minimized risk to shareholder value. The company's public image was
improved.
Mr. Doppelt discussed the economic benefit of sustainable development in Lane County, noting
a full report on the topic was on the committee's Web site. The report concluded that the
sustainability sector was diverse; it included natural foods, recycling businesses, consulting
firms, green building companies, industrial manufacturers, service-oriented companies, and
investment firms. Most of the businesses in question had been in business 11 or more years,
nearly half had been in business for 20 years or more, and 75 percent were founded by residents
who were not likely to leave the community in a downturn. The businesses were making an
important financial contribution to the community. There is room for growth in the sustainable
development sector, which could become a major competitive advantage for the county.
Mr. Doppelt recommended the community establish a goal of growing the sustainable
development sector and establish policies and programs to achieve that goal. Existing businesses
that apply the practices should be strengthened and Other businesses encouraged to use them.
The community should grow the existing "clusters" of sustainable development sector businesses
through expansion or recruitment, and create infrastructure to support them.
Mr. Re'Voal asked if Mr. Doppelt would suggest mandates for business. Mr. Doppelt said no;
he would recommend incentives as a more effective approach. Mr. Re'Voal noted diminishing
options for recycling, particularly for materials such as computers. He asked how that sector
could be grown without any return on the investment. Mr. Doppelt said there were several
products, particularly in the area of electronics, where there was not yet a market. He suggested
another issue to consider was how to design products that could be more easily recycled, which
could be a business opportunity.
Mr. Wanichek asked Mr. Doppelt if he could relate his remarks to those made by Mr. Roberts
about the importance of the traded sector. Mr. Doppelt said he thought they related well.
Stabilizing existing businesses and helping them to apply sustainable business practices will
reduce costs for all businesses, and new products tend to emerge from such efforts. That led to
new business opportunities. Then he would look to bring in traded jobs that filled a niche in the
clusters.
Mr. Korth said when attempting to apply green construction practices he found that even with
knowledgeable architects, there was still quite a bit of additional cost involved. He asked if that
would improve over time. Mr. Doppelt said yes. He said it was a supply and demand issue.
Prices in green construction were gradually coming down.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 6
Mr. Proudfoot said there were many areas of opportunity in the sustainable development sector
that could provide the community with better-paying jobs. He supported taking what the
community had in place and growing it.
Ms. Rygas believed that incentives were a reasonable approach to support sustainable businesses.
Mr. Doppelt agreed. He suggested as an example an eco industrial park with accompanying tax
breaks.
Factors that Affect Economic Development
4. Business Assistance
Bob Warren of the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) was
present for the discussion. He distributed copies of a presentation entitled "Refocusing
Economic Development" prepared by department director Marty Brantley. The presentation
provided information on the department's shift in direction. The department staff had been
realigned to emphasize business expansion and recruitment, and the budget had been increased to
support those activities. The department was charged to support the growth of the invocation
economy by advancing the governor's post-secondary education agenda and to work with all its
partners on a technology roadmap and in assessing the needs of the innovation economy.
Mr. Warren encouraged members to visit the department's Web site: www. econ.state.or.us.
Mr. Warren said the department offered assistance in siting, workforce, finance, incentives, small
business programs, international trade programs, and economic data. The department worked to
streamline regulatory processes, helped fund public infrastructure improvements that supported
industrial properties, and helped companies find new sites and expand. The department oversaw
a newly established employer's workforce training fund to help employers train their existing
workforce.
Mr. Warren discussed the organizational structure of the department, reporting it was divided
into several regions, each with a workforce response team charged to work with employers and
workforce investment board charged to coordinate training funds.
Mr. Warren discussed the department's business assistance programs, which included brownfield
redevelopment funding, business retention funding, revolving loan funds, etc. He emphasized
the department tried to provide access to all the programs and agencies needed. He noted the
popularity of the department's business development loan fund, which involved local banks. Mr.
Warren reported the program created many jobs and the department was seeking to increase the
budget for the fund. He said the program was heavily used in Lane County.
Mr. Warren discussed incentives available through the State, which included property tax
exemptions for properties in enterprise zones and State tax reductions such as the tax credit
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 7
program. He said the State also funded and worked with small business development centers,
which were an excellent resource for small businesses. The State had an international trade team
based in Portland.
Mr. Rygas asked if economic innovation was the same as high tech. Mr. Warren said innovation
was part of high tech, which was an industry cluster. Ms. Rygas asked if the State had any
expectations of the businesses that approached it for help. Mr. Warren said his agency had been
charged by the State legislature to create 17,000 jobs in the biennium, and that would be the first
question he asked of businesses. He would focus his efforts where there was the most likelihood
of job creation. Ms. Rygas asked how much staff time the department spent on the Eugene-
Springfield area. Mr. Warren said he tried to divide his time over the entire region, and his
office was in Eugene.
Mr. Proudfoot asked Mr. Warren if he could provide examples of things other cities had done in
terms of economic development that Eugene was not doing. Mr. Warren said Eugene lacked an
enterprise zone, which were important elements in business development. It was a way of saying
the community was open for business. He thought it was a huge disadvantage that Eugene did
not have one.
Ms. Teninty asked if there were any best management practices regarding streamlining of
regulations. Mr. Warren said there was a regulatory streamlining effort going on in Salem right
now, and he anticipated it would result in some best management practices.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the governor's executive orders regarding atmospheric warming and
sustainability had any impact on the department's approach to its task. Mr. Warren said not
directly. However, some of the incentives were discretionary on the part of the governor's office
and require his personal approval, so there some accountability in that sense.
The committee took a brief meeting break.
5. Land Supply
The committee heard a presentation on land supply issues from Rick Duncan of Duncan and
Brown. Mr. Duncan noted his authorship of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce's 2000
industrial and commercial lands studies. He discussed the results of the study, saying it was an
attempt to determine where the community was in terms of the amount of land available in the
mid-point of a 20-year period.
Mr. Duncan encouraged the committee to think of the land supply as a component of economic
development. He said that 80 percent of job growth comes from local businesses, but those
businesses must have some room to expand to accommodate job growth. They could either build
or redevelop. He said the community's building stock was aging and did not fit the needs of
modern industrial users. For that reason, it was important to consider the location of lands and
the potential of redevelopment of under-utilized properties: His study indicated that the
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 8
community had essentially run out of commercial land. In 2000, Eugene had 80-90 acres of
commercial acreage, only 30 of which was unconstrained. He had recently checked and learned
the amount had dwindled since then to 6 or 8 acres.
Mr. Duncan discussed redevelopment as a strategy, saying it was more costly and was likely to
satisfy only ten percent of the community's need for additional land. He suggested the City
could consider a more aggressive approach to redevelopment to perhaps increase that amount
somewhat. He said the new code was essentially a new construction, greenfield code. Under the
code, it was easy to develop vacant land, but more complicated and costly to redevelop an
existing site. Mr. Duncan estimated it cost 20 to 40 percent more to develop a brownfield site.
Mr. Duncan said that local industrial lands were limited: in size and constrained by natural
resources and the lack of infrastructure. He said unlike commercial redevelopment, which could
be done piecemeal, industrial redevelopment had to be considered on a larger scale, and in west
Eugene that would likely require a public/private partnership to assemble a large amount of land
for a new industrial park. Industrial investors do not want to invest in an area with older
buildings. Creating such parks took time and money.
Mr. Duncan recommended the City complete its land inventories to resolve some of the
questions that existed about the land supply. He recommended the City consider zoning changes
that added flexibility to the code. He also recommended that the City create a strong
redevelopment strategy that allowed it to take advantage of opportunities that were arising in the
form of the Union Pacific rail yards and vacant mill sites.
Mr. Duncan concluded by saying the community was running out of all types of lands. While
the Growth Management Study had supported an approach that "went up, not out," as a planning
commissioner he constantly heard "just don't do it in my neighborhood" from every
neighborhood in town. He said that the Bureau of Land .Management had acquired about 900
acres of land formerly intended for industrial use in west Eugene to preserve as wetlands; the
City had used 230 acres in north Eugene for wastewater treatment purposes. Those lands were
taken out of the inventory and had not been replaced, and he thought they should be replaced.
Ms. Rygas asked about new approaches to zoning. Mr. Duncan said the thing to consider was
how uses fit together. He thought that zoning that was less precise would be more flexible. He
thought the code overly specific.
Ms. Pierce asked Mr. Duncan if the community needed to expand the urban growth boundary
(UGB) to get more land. Mr. Duncan said that was a possible solution. He thought that
discussion needed to occur. He said that because of the "lock" on the UGB residential lots have
more than doubled in price, leading to the potential the community could become a place where
one had to be rich to live.
Mr. Wanichek asked Mr. Duncan how many acres he recommended be added to the land supply.
Mr. Duncan suggested the City look at what was consumed during the 1990s and replace that.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 9
He believed that if the community wanted continued prosperity, it needed more land, and it
needed to use that land wisely. He said that if the community wanted redevelopment, it was
likely to take public money.
Mr. Bowerman recalled a proposal for performance zoning as an alternative code track, which
was to be worked on at some point after the code was completed. He asked Mr. Duncan if that
was a way to avoid a code written for greenfield development. Mr. Duncan thought it was an
alternative that should be looked at. He said rather than being creative, Eugene tended to specify
every detail of development. He said if Eugene was going to encourage redevelopment, it
needed a process where that could occur at the same pace as greenfield development.
Mr. Duncan distributed copies of an executive summary of the two studies and referred members
to his firm's Web site for more information: www.duncanbrown.com
6. Quality of Workforce and Wages
Bob Bussel of the Labor Education and Research Center at the University of Oregon made a
presentation on workforce quality and wages. He emphasized the importance of quality jobs to
labor. He discussed the impact of low-wage jobs, saying it was a national issue. Wages had not
kept pace with inflation over the last two decades and the average annual wage in Lane County
had declined from $31,000 in 1978 to $27,780 in 2000. The numbers of those working in lower
wage job in Lane County had increased.
Mr. Bussel discussed what was actually required to support a family, saying that a Eugene family
with an adult and child required a job paying $12.70 an hour, or $26,598 annually, to meet basic
standards of self-sufficiency. Two adults and two children needed a job that paid $17.01 an
hour, or $35,322 annually, to meet those standards. Many jobs fall short of the self-sufficiency
standard.
Mr. Bussel discussed the societal costs of low-wage jobs, reporting a study by the Atlanta
Constitution indicated that more than 10,000 of 166,000 children receiving insurance coverage
from a Georgia program for uninsured children had a parent working at a Wal Mart. A Harvard
Business School Study indicated that Wal Mart spent an average of $1,300 less per employee
than other comparable retailers. When Wal Mart failed to pay adequate wages or provide
adequate benefits, there were public costs. Low-wage workers were much more likely to receive
food stamps and housing subsidies. Low wage workershad higher turnover and low prospects of
advancement.
Mr. Bussel said the committee should recognize that iow-wage jobs were more likely to harm the
local economy. For workers and unions, the focus was on the need to attract good jobs and
sustain families and to avoid creating a drain on community resources. He asked the committee
to think about what a good job was, suggesting that a move toward a sustainability standard was
appropriate, although it did not have to be a rigid standard. Mr. Bussel noted that employers also
found living wage jobs to be important to a sustainable local economy, and cited a high quality
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 10
work force as vital to realizing that goal. He did not think one could consider a high quality
work force without thinking of higher wage jobs. He said quality jobs should provide some level
of benefit as well as opportunities for advancement.
Mr. Bussel noted the trend toward incorporating job quality standards, particularly as they
applied to wages and benefits, at the state, county, and local government level. The organization
Good Jobs First had identified 49 municipalities as incorporating job quality standards into the
subsidies they offered to companies. He suggested defined job quality standards should be
included in any recruitment or retention strategy to send a message to the businesses Eugene
wanted to attract.
Mr. Bussel discussed "sectoral" strategies, where a community identified existing industries or
clusters of industries that paid well and attempted to attract other companies that were related.
He said sectoral strategies worked when they brought together a broad spectrum of stakeholders,
including the labor community. In a sectoral strategy, employers and stakeholders worked
together to do things they could not do alone. They shared information, developed job training
together, and worked together on modernization upgrading, etc.
Mr. Bussel encouraged the committee to solicit input from low-wage workers.
Responding to a question from Mr. Re'Voal, Mr. Bussel said self-training was very important.
However, low-wage workers needed support to help them find financial assistance and job
opportunities. Self-reliance is great but does not help in a low-wage situation.
Mr. Coyle said that a "job is what it is" but depending on where one was in one's life stage, it
had a different meaning. He asked how that factored into the discussion. Mr. Bussel said people
were employed for different reasons at different phases in their life, but he still believed a job
quality standard was important for those working at' the beginning and the end of their careers.
7. Why do Firms Locate in Eugene (or Not?)
Dick Sheehy, Manager for Site Selection of Industrial Design and Construction, joined the
committee for the discussion. Copies of his presentation were distributed to members. Mr.
Sheehy gave a brief history oflDC and its services. He said his firm worked all over the world
and focused on architectural engineering and construction of high tech buildings. He said
Eugene's competition was global.
Mr. Sheehy discussed what his firm looked for when working with clients to site a building. He
said companies called him seeking sites of a certain size in a certain location. He then called
people like Mr. Roberts to seek out more information about site availability. He said key to the
site selection process was for a community to "get on the list, stay on the list, and win." He said
quality of life can get a community on the list and couid be a tiebreaker in the final decision, but
companies did not go anywhere because of quality of'life. He said Eugene was on many lists
because of its size, the university, and its location on I-5. It was off other lists for the same
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 11
reasons and because it was not near a major airport. Mr. Sheehy said when he received a call
from a client, he immediately began to work to take communities off the list and winnow down
selections.
Mr. Sheehy described a recent site selection process he went through and said one needed many
choices because so few sites were suitable. That was related to land availability. He praised the
Oregon land use system but said that now there was no land left inside the boundaries. He said
he could never have too many choices as a site selector. If there was only one choice, there
were no negotiations, and if something went wrong with the site, the client would not stick
around.
Speaking to the issue of labor, Mr. Sheehy said that heavy, labor-intensive manufacturing was
going out of the country. It was not coming to Eugene. The higher paying knowledge-based
jobs were the desired ones, and Eugene had the elements to attract them with the University. He
said the companies most likely to want to come to Eugene were likely to be those the community
wanted. Mr. Sheehy emphasized the importance of the community being located on I-5. He said
access to the airport was also crucial. Adequate capacity in the sewer, water, and storm systems
was also necessary to attracting companies. Impact .fees should be reasonable.
Mr. Sheehy stressed the importance of speed to companies. Companies also want certainty.
They want to know what the regulations were and they did not want them to change as that
created schedule and community image problems. Employee recruitment, screening, and
training were important to companies. He commended the job that Lane Community College did
in working with Sony on employee training. He said the community should keep doing such
training and keep it focused.
Mr. Sheehy said Oregon needed to be careful about the image it projected. People outside the
state considered it a great place to live, environmentally sensitive, and a hard place to do
business in. He said university communities were generally no growth communities; their
residents did not want them to change. It was hard to develop in such communities.
Mr. Sheehy agreed with Mr. Roberts' remarks about incentives. He said that incentives create
partnerships between a community and a company. He said that partnership could be more
important to a company than the money. He said in some cases, incentives merely level the
playing field and allowed the community to be competitive in the industries it most desired, such
as the knowledge-based sector.
Mr. Sheehy said the community should look at corporate headquarters in the same way it looked
at the traded sector. Such headquarters brought money into the community and created new
jobs.
Mr. Sheehy said Eugene had an anti-business reputation that it needed to overcome if it was to be
serious about creating jobs. Companies that make knowledge-based products can go anywhere
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 12
they want to go. They do not go where they are not wanted by the community. He said that
getting community support for a company was very important.
Mr. Korth asked how far a site could be from I-5 to meet the criteria. Mr. Sheehy said the closer
the site, the better. He said that frequently he brought clients into town and they traveled over
interchanges adjacent to flat, accessible land. Clients ask about those lands and when told they
were outside the UGB, they react with surprise. Then he drove them out to west Eugene toward
the cost to show them available industrial land.
Responding to a question from Mr. Wanichek, Mr. Sheehy emphasized the importance of
showing companies what had been accomplished in the community, and keeping in touch with
existing companies to ensure they were happy. When new companies come to town, they
frequently contact other companies for information.
Ms. Edwards asked Mr. Sheehy to discuss the greatest local hurdle to attracting new firms. Mr.
Sheehy said he did not know. Formerly, it was timing. He did not think that was as much of an
issue now. Now, the issue appeared to be moving the regulatory hoops. That was a problem for
companies. Mr. Kahle asked if that could be attributed to the political process, the citizenry, or
City staff. Mr. Sheehy attributed it to politics and City staff. Staff had to ensure the project met
life safety requirements. The politics of the situation were that people did not want new
development near them. Every project faced that problem, 'and the City's response was very
important. If the City stood up and indicated the project met the requirements and could go
forward, that was important. If the City allowed the project to near completion and then
someone said, "maybe we should have one more public hearing,'' then companies had a problem.
Organize into Subcommittees
The committee discussed a proposal prepared by Ms. ?.ierce and Mr. Kahle suggesting that rather
than form subcommittees at this time, the committee schedule another meeting to hear from local
experts with experience in past economic development efforts. Members accepted the proposal,
and discussed different people that could be asked to present information. Ms. Pierce and Mr.
Kahle agreed to work with Mr. Moore on a list of speakers.
Ms. Edwards requested a matrix encapsulating the key elements of past studies and plans.
The next meeting was scheduled for April 20, 2004, at noon.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development March 8, 2004 Page 13
AGENDA
MEETING 3: OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN EUGENE
APRIL 20, 2004.'
12:00 - 3:00 P'.M.
ATRIUM BUILDING.
SLOAT CONFERENCE ROOM
99 W. 10TH AVENUE
WELCOME JIM FORBES, COMMITTEE CHAIR
APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING #1 ALL
PRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL EXPERTS
1. Brian Obie, former Mayor
2. Jim Johnson, former City Manager
3. Lew Bowers, former staff in Economic Development
4. Hugh Prichard, developer/realtor
5. Rich Linton, University of Oregon Vice President for Research and Graduate
Studies and Graduate School Dean
COMMITTEE'S NEXT STEPS ALL
MINUTES
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Bascom Room--Eugene Public Library
April 20, 2004
Noon
PRESENT:
Committee: Jim Forbes, Chair; Tom Bowerman, Marcia Edwards, Bill Goldsmith, Don Kahle
(via speakerphone), Steve Korth, Michaet. Phlnney, Gretchen Pierce, Joshua
Proudfoot, Marvin Re'Voal, Rusty Rexiu~i Jana Rygas, Kathy Smith, Ellen
Teninty, Craig Wanicheck.
Staff: Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle; Ann Munroe, Mike Sullivan,
Denny Braud, Richie Weinman, Planning and Development Department; Terry
Moore, Anne Fifield, ECONorthwest.~
Guests: Lew Bowers, Jim Johnson, Rich Li~ton, Brian Obie, Hugh Prichard, Russ Brink.
Absent: Kartar Khalsa, committee member.
Welcome
Mr. Forbes called the meeting of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development to order.
At his request, those present introduced themselves.
Approve Minutes From Meeting #1
This item was on the agenda but was not addressed.
Presentations from Local Experts Regarding Obstacles and Opportunities in Eugene
Mr. Forbes reminded the committee that it agreed to invite the guest speakers that were
previously involved in Eugene's economic development efforts to discuss obstacles and
opportunities. He noted that some advance materials had been spent to committee members.
The committee first heard from former Eugene mayor Brian Obie. Mr. Obie made the following
points:
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 1
· Eugene lacks transportation access and it is difficult to get in and out of the
community
· Eugene is average in terms of employment and economic activity, but it is not an
exciting place to do business
· Eugene has little potential for economic growth
· Eugene's economic trends have not been good
· Eugene's industrial base is declining
· The community lacks a common vision for economic development so those who
oppose growth win the political battles--the community needs a vision that people
can support
· Eugene needs to first assess its opportunities-there were opportunities the
community could leverage into the future
· Eugene was unlikely to see a large industrial company move in and cannot count
on such companies in the future
· The University of Oregon was a major economic driver in the community and
created the greatest opportunities for the community to leverage into a new
economy in areas such as athletics, biotechnology, computer science, etc.
· The community should nourish University research spin-offs
· Education was an industry with the capacity for growth
· The University's capital investments should be built upon
· Medical services will be a major economic opportunity in the future and will be a
growing industry for some time to come
· Owners of vacant buildings in the commt~nity needed to make rent concessions to
fill them, and needed to connect to new businesses and jobs
Mr. Obie said economic development would not occur without a strong connection between the
University, City, and the business community. Those entities needed to come together with a
common agenda and a shared vision. Fulfilling the vision would require actions. He urged the
committee to foster the connection.
Mr. Obie said economic development was not "back room" stuff. It needed full disclosure and
participation at all levels of the community. He invited questions.
Ms. Pierce asked Mr. Obie if he had specific recommendations for the committee. Mr. Obie
thought the council, as the authority that would adopt any recommendations, as well as the
University and business community, should be involved in the work of the committee. If those
entities were not in agreement, nothing would happen.
Mr. Goldsmith asked Mr. Obie to discuss places he found economically exciting. Mr. Obie said
that there was much going on in Portland, which had experienced similar economic difficulties.
Downtown had vitality and activity, and things were being done that improved the economy. He
said Portland had leadership that was willing to develop the riverfront in a manner that benefited
the community. He noted Cincinnati, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and St. Louis had recently
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 2
constructed new sports stadiums in their downtowns, drawing people from outside those
communities. He noted his own support for locating the University of Oregon basketball arena
in the location of the former Agripac cannery.
Mr. Korth asked Mr. Obie if he felt that large industries were unlikely to be part of the solution
because of the political challenges they created. Mr. Obie said he felt they were unlikely to be
part of the solution because of the world and United States economies and the lack of growth
occurring in the industrial sector. He said that as mayor he 'spent time on business recruitment
and found it frustrating and a long-term process. Mr. Obie thought the community's empty
buildings could attract some businesses to the community, and suggested the City work with
those business owners to determine the best approach for marketing those buildings.
Mr. Bowerman said he was concerned the City did not embrace the broadest commonalities
within the community. He asked Mr. Obie to share any observations he had about how the
community could create a common vision. Mr. Obie said a vision was important but without
action it did not mean anything. When he was mayor, difficult economic times brought people
together and it was easier to agree on an agenda. He believed the question of vision was one of
leadership. He said the City needed to achieve a balance, and could not ignore any elements of
the community.
The committee then heard from former City Manager Jim Johnson. Mr. Johnson discussed how
to get something done in Eugene, making the following points:
WILL HAPPEN (Level of enthusiasm is high)
· Mayor constantly asks about progress
· Six of eight councilors support; strong support, within the council's goals
· In individual meetings, six councilors frequently ask about progress
· City Manager is excited; part of legacy f~or organization
· Multiple executive managers excited
· Organization embraces effort
· Chamber of Commerce supportive, such as in the case of the parks and open
space bond
· Advisory committee with members that have ties to a majority on the City
Council
· Intergovernmental partners are excited
· Champions in the community--lots of talk, e.g., Rotary Club and the Rose
Garden project
· Register-Guard editorial support is strong--multiple good editorials and good
stories over time, such as in the case of the federal courthouse project
· Doesn't cost a lot of money,
· Short duration versus long-term makes easier to accomplish
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 3
MIGHT HAPPEN
· A lot of the above; not many of the below
WON'T HAPPEN (Level of enthusiasm is low)
· Less than minority on council want it to happen--e.g., the Emerald Canal
· Mayor is not supportive; never asks about it; asks if it really has to happen
· City Manager not excited
· Only one department is affected
· Register-Guard editorial against
· Chamber of Commerce is not supportive
· Intergovernmental partners offer no help
· No advisory committee; no champions
· Long-term versus short duration
· Is very expensive
Ms. Pierce said Mr. Johnson mostly talked in project-specifiC terms as opposed to a long-term
vision with action steps. She asked if that was based on his experience that Eugene tended to do
economic development one step at a time, and if he expected that pattern to continue. Mr.
Johnson said yes. He did not think the council had been very good over the years about
identifying goals, objectives, and tasks and about implementing the tasks that get one closer to
one's goal.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Johnson if he would consider the community had an economic
development problem. He pointed out that Eugene had been using up its buildable lands supply
at a fairly fast pace, and economic development had occurred in Eugene over the past few years.
Mr. Johnson said he believed there was a problem. He pointed out that wages in Eugene were
low compared to other communities regionally and nationally, and low-income families required
food assistance because ora lack of family wage jobs. He suggested the better question was
whether that problem would translate into sufficient enthusiasm for a solution.
Mr. Goldsmith suggested the discussion could be more fruitful if it occurred on a regional basis.
Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Goldsmith asked Mr. Johnson to comment on that. Mr. Johnson said
things do happen because of good relations between jurisdictions. They were hard to manage
and nourish in this kind of setting, but they do happen. Some things do not happen because
relationships were not as good as they should be. He cited as a good example of
intergovernmental cooperation the 1986 urban transiti°n agreements between the two cities and
Lane County. ..
Ms. Smith suggested that enthusiasm for a project essentially translated into agreement about the
project, and asked Mr. Johnson what opportunities existed for potential agreement that could be
fruitful area for the committee to focus upon. Mr. Johnson did not know precisely what those
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 4
opportunities were. He suggested the committee identify enough options to allow it to identify
where the enthusiasm is when the elected officials considered them. He said that part of success
was getting something done, and if the committee could identify enough meaningful alternatives,
it was likely to find success.
Lew Bowers, former City employee now employed by the Portland Development Commission,
joined the committee. He briefly noted the projects that came to fruition during his tenure with
the City. He suggested the committee pull the last plan "off the shelf and dust it off." He said
the issue facing Eugene was not the lack of a plan but the lack of agreement about its economic
future. Mr. Bowers made the following points:
Obstacles to Success:
· The lack of agreement about the future narrowed the community's ability to act
· The historic disconnect in Eugene between wanting jobs but not wanting to work
with businesses
The lack of political will to implement past plans
· The lack of financial resources to implement the plans
· Eugene had a fairly sophisticated and well-crafted anti-business reputation that
was known all along the west coast, creating a challenge to retention of existing
businesses
Opportunities:
· Eugene had many opportunities, including its unique life style and educated work
force
· Eugene had a high level of business formation
· Eugene had a significant institutional asset in the form of the University
· Eugene had local families investing in real estate in Eugene rather than in larger
communities such as Denver or Las Vegas
· Eugene had the opportunity to bring McKenzie-Willamette/Triad into the
community
Mr. Bowers discussed the origin of Eugene's anti-business reputation, noting it had dismantled
the Business Assistance Team, ended the enterprise zone, and focused the downtown urban
renewal project on the library to the detriment of other downtown projects. Speaking to the last
topic, Mr. Bowers said that the council had been prepared to end urban renewal in downtown
altogether. Councilor Nancy Nathanson had attempted to retain some funding for downtown
projects, but a motion she put forth to that effect was defeated.
Mr. Bowers emphasized that the recommendations of the 1994 Council Committee on Economic
Development were good but they were not funded by the council. They were still valid today.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Develop~nent April 20, 2004 Page 5
Mr. Bowers said a plan that had a project focus gave the City flexibility to act when
opportunities arose. The problem was never the lack of a plan, but a lack of implementation.
Mr. Bowers recommended that the City:
· Be clear about what kind of business was acceptable to create certainty
· Focus on business retention/new business creation--business attraction is a "crap
shoot"
· Focus incentives on family wage jobs; minimum wage jobs will come on their
own
· Create a business ombudsman to help businesses work through the regulations
· Place long-term effort and support toward economic development--the political
support for economic development tends to be countercyclical but real flexibility
is available when times are good, and'.that was when the framework to weather
the next recession can be established :
· Isolate economic development from politics
· Should be flexible to be opportunistic; Eugene tended to want to "pin things
down" and that was not an affective approach
· Not confuse economic development with downtown development; downtown
development was necessary, but not sufficient
· Scale incentives to match the public' benefit
· Establish public/private partnerships
· React quickly
· Dedicate resources to economic development, specifically through the
establishment of new urban renewal districts--such districts are a flawed tool, but
one of the few Oregon allows
Consider bonding against the urban renewal districts for funding
· Establish a new enterprise zone--it would be a significant symbolic gesture
· Commit some General Fund dollars to economic development
· Reestablish the Business Assistance Team
· Participate in Metro Partnership efforts
· Establish an Urban Renewal Agency Authority. separate from the City Council or
create an urban renewal advisory comm/~tee
· Reestablish the Downtown Commission
· Give staff the authority to act--Eugene, has excellent staff
Responding to a question from Ms. Pierce, Mr. Bowersindicated that Eugene could not
discriminate in terms of nature of the businesses that located in an enterprise zone. Ms. Pierce
suggested the creation of such a zone could violate some other tenants the committee discussed,
such as the importance of family wage jobs. Mr. Bowers agreed. He said that in the past, the
City Council had considered, although it did not approve, a fairly sophisticated set of benefits
tied to the public good. Ms. Pierce asked if the zone must be contiguous. Mr. Bowers said yes.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 6
Ms. Rygas recalled presenter Jack Roberts' comments that it was great to help local businesses
but they were part of a natural business cycle, and his emphasis on the importance of bringing
traded jobs into the community to create actual growth. She asked Mr. Bowers to reconcile those
comments with his remarks about business attraction. Mr. Bowers said he did not agree; he
believed new dollars came in when the City helped existing businesses that were export
businesses or that created new businesses. He agreed as to the importance of helping
manufacturers create traded jobs, but did not think that had anything to do with whether such
businesses were locally based or attracted to the community.
Citing Hynix as an example, Ms. Rygas asked Mr. Bowers to discuss whether the community
dissention about who to assist was a matter ofpercepti, on or reality, and what the current policy
was. Mr. Bowers did not know the City's current policies. He said it was his perception that
most municipalities say they will help local businesses, but all the resources were pulled out
when a large business came along. He said that was the reality of the situation. In the case of
Hynix, Eugene did not seek the company but had little choice when the company came to it. He
suggested that an inexpensive way to assist local businesses was through the reestablishment of
the Business Assistance Team. He further recommended that the budget for economic
development be split between business retention and business recruitment on a 90/10 basis.
Mr. Proudfoot determined from Mr. Bowers that the State established the base benefits
associated with enterprise zones, but cities could add othe~:s.
Local realtor/developer Hugh Prichard shared his thoughts on economic development. He
indicated the materials he had sent out earlier were focused on downtown. He emphasized the
collaborative nature of successful projects in and around downtown. He concurred with the
remarks of Mr. Bowers regarding bonding against urban renewal.
Mr. Prichard made the following points:
· The community has a lower-than-average median wage and that has not improved
over time, which serves as a disincentive for businesses seeking to locate in
Eugene as they do not believe they will have a sufficiently sized local market
· Local banks are reluctant to invest in projects that they have no comparisons for,
such as the Lincoln School Apartments
· Companies such as Van Star locate in Eugene to take advantage of its educated
and inexpensive labor force
· Companies are more able to afford Eugene's commercial rents if they have a
regional or national market
· Eugene should support its research-related and medical businesses as ~hose
opportunities were growing and paid more than the minimum wage
· Eugene should support its government sector jobs because they also pay well
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 7
· There was value in growing the property tax assessed value over time through
such tools as the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption as those properties come
back on the tax rolls after ten years
Mr. Prichard suggested Eugene faced what he termed a "melodrama" problem in its approach to
public issues. He cited as an example a headline from the Eugene Weekly regarding the
transportation project associated with the courthouse project that read "Ducks Versus Trucks."
Mr. Prichard said that embodied everything idiotic about Eugene to him, because the community
needs both ducks and trucks, but continued to allow the debate about public issues to be framed
in terms of "good guys against bad guys." He believed the City Council needed to embrace the
controversies as they arose, define the issues involved, and frame the debate for the community.
Mr. Prichard said that would help avoid the melodrama.
Mr. Prichard believed communities could have both a strong environmental business ethic and
strong intellectual orientation toward solving problems as well as financially viable enterprises.
He said that one did not have to be either for ducks or for trucks.
Mr. Wanicheck arrived.
Mr. Korth said many of the capital projects that had occurred over the past years had been as a
result of nonprofit organizations such as the University or hospital. He was concerned about the
amount of property in the community that was tax-ex6mpt. He asked the presenters to comment.
Mr. Prichard said he believed the future would include more collaborative projects between
nonprofits and the City. He said the City was not improving its property tax base and he thought
that would continue to worsen. Mr. Bowers agreed. He said the public sector drove the local
economy to a greater degree than the private sector. He pointed out that the public sector also
created opportunities the community could not ignore.' Mr. Johnson said every dollar of taxable
value in Eugene added to the City's General Fund, which the council might not realize to the
degree it ought.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the Portland model addressed the'issue of community polarization.
Mr. Bowers said Portland did a good job of that. He said Portland was willing to place resources
into development and had a history of projects to build. 'While people might not like one project,
there was probably another one that they did support. Portland was willing to engage in
public/private ventures. Portland citizens were willing to acknowledge that businesses created
jobs and were not offended by the idea that a developer would make a profit. Mr. Bowers said
the debate in Portland was less polarized. The extremes "were well represented in Portland but
there were more representing the "middle ground." Finally, Portland institutions have embraced
the environmental ethic and they were profiting from it.
Mr. Proudfoot noted that the Portland Development Commission took an equity position in
projects, and "green" assistance was a part of its technical assistance program.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 8
Ms. Edwards liked the term "environmental business ethic" and suggested it could be a template
that could be applied rather than merely discussed, although she acknowledged that would be a
challenge. She believed it could create common ground among citizens.
Mr. Rexius asked where the resources for economic development would come from. Mr.
Johnson said the money was available, but its allocation needed to be a council priority. Mr.
Obie concurred. He cited Springfield as an example of a community that had placed resources
into economic development with success.
Ms. Rygas asked what the community could do to account for mistakes made in the past by the
polarized sides without dwelling on it. Mr. Johnson pointed Out there was not polarization on
many community issues. Mr. Obie believed that one could not ignore the fact the community
was polarized and had disagreement. As a result, things do not happen and the community gets
lower paying jobs.
Mr. Wanichek asked Mr. Bowers to discuss the importance of an organization such as the
Portland Development Commission. Mr. Bowers said it was essential. He said the commission
was a special purpose form of government separate from the City of Portland. The commission
was not elected, which made a big difference, but members were sensitive to politics. Members
had business expertise and community credibility. Mr. Obie agreed as to the importance of the
commission.
Ms. Rygas asked by what mechanism the commission's guidelines were put in place. Mr.
Bowers indicated they were formally adopted policies that went through a public process.
Mr. Coyle observed that Eugene had a very complex zoning code. He asked the presenters to
comment on the regulatory nature of the code, which worked against consensus. Mr. Johnson
said the City Council had tended to attempt to achieve its public policy goals through regulation.
He thought that was the wrong approach. He suggested the City needed to consider incentives
rather than take a regulatory approach. He believed PeaceHealth's plans to leave Eugene were
because of the council's attempt to regulate it in staying in its current location. Mr. Johnson said
he was not sufficiently familiar with the range of zoning codes to talk about what was wrong
with Eugene's.
Mr. Coyle said the community continued to use zoning as a hammer rather than a scalpel. He
asked how zoning related to the Portland Development Commission's projects. Mr. Bowers was
unsure he could answer that specifically. He said zoning and regulation were designed to
prevent the worst case scenario and represented a floor rather than a ceiling. Extraordinary
projects were created by incentives and partnerships. He did not think Portland's zoning scheme
was simpler than Eugene's, but it had an incentive base that allowed projects to "rise above that"
and achieve some degree of innovation. Mr. Bowers noted that everything he worked on in
Portland regarded mixed use rather than separated uses.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 9
Mr. Bowers emphasized that it was important to have someone with authority to act when a
citizen had a problem with zoning.
Mr. Prichard noted that when the zoning code was updated, the definitions were not, which
caused problems.
Mr. Prichard said the community should not be looking to Portland for answers because Portland
was a large community that could be restrictive and proscriptive in ways Eugene could not. He
said Eugene residents constantly tried to adapt the ideas of larger communities, such as nodal
development, which he termed a "disaster." It was a concept drawn from vital urban areas and
Eugene was attempting to adapt it to suburbia. It was not going to work in the short-term.
Mr. Forbes asked the presenters to comment on land availability and the urban growth boundary.
He said the boundary was intended to contain growth but it. had the result of increasing housing
prices to the degree that it forced low-income people out of the community to other nearby
communities to live, which caused vehicle miles traveled to go up. Mr. Prichard believed the
boundary was working well. The community was just now beginning to push up against the
boundary and feel its effects. He thought it the only thing that Separated Oregon communities
from communities in other states. Mr. Obie concurred.' He though the boundary was a
"bogeyman" for those who thought a larger UGB would create more opportunity. He did not
share that belief. He thought the boundary contributed to the environment and community
livability.
Mr. Obie supported Mr. Bowers' comments about the importance of the Business Assistance
Team, and suggested the committee offer the reestablishment of the team as a recommendation.
He believed the committee should also recommend a body modeled on the Portland
Development Commission.
Mr. Bowerman determined from Mr. Bowers that the C!ty of Portland had an alternative design
review path that allowed developers to avoid more proscriptive codes. Mr. Bowers said initially,
the development community feared it, but now embraced it. Mr. Prichard believed Eugene
should consider a similar approach.
Mr. Bowerman asked the presenters to discuss the agricultural sector as an economic
opportunity. He said agriculture was part of the area's common and economic history but the
sector was currently in distress. He said to the extent the community wanted to embrace and
protect the lifestyles of farmers and maintain the interaction between the urban and rural areas, it
seemed like an opportunity area. Mr. Johnson suggested the issue was an intergovernmental one.
The committee was charged by the mayor to develop an economic development plan for an
urban area, but obviously Eugene was part of a regional economy. He asked where the
leadership was at the Board of County Commissioners to positive impact those things mentioned
by Mr. Bowerman. He suggested the board was the more logical body to take such issues to, but
he did not see the leadership needed. Mr. Bowerman said he was not thinking so much about
protection, but about value added and manufacturing. The community lost its cannery rather
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 10
than being able to relocate it. Mr. Johnson said that discussions about retaining the cannery
occurred with the company, but it was not interested. He agreed a regional discussion about the
economy would be ideal.
Mr. Prichard pointed out that if Eugene retained its UGB, in 30 years it would be one of the few
places in the country where one could go to the edge of the city and be on a farm. That land
could not be speculated on and would hold its lower value.. Mr. Forbes reiterated his concern
about the impact of the UGB on land values and asked where people would live. He questioned
if people were really willing to live in higher density development, and if people who worked for
nonprofit agencies such as his, Lookingglass, would be able to live in Eugene. Mr. Prichard did
not think there was any correlation between land value and the UGB, pointing out land values in
Los Angeles were high but there were no boundaries. Mr. Obie believed that it was the intent of
the framers of the Metropolitan Plan that some residential growth go to the smaller communities.
Responding to a question from Ms. Teninty, Mr. Johnson said the effect of Ballot Measure 47/50
was that new growth in a community meant more tax revenues to the local revenue. New growth
was more value than existing development because that was the only way to add to the property
tax base.
Ms. Teninty noted that no one had mentioned the Region .2050 regional planning effort and
asked if that was irrelevant. Mr. Johnson did not think so, but pointed out the effort was
relatively recent. He believed the level of enthusiasm with which it was received by regional
elected officials would be an indicator of its relevance. ·
Mr. Forbes thanked the presenters. The committee took a brief break.
As the next presenter, Mr. Linton, had not yet arrived, Mr. Forbes distributed a document entitled
Suggestions for Next Steps, which included recommendations for the committee's process from
this point. He reviewed the document, which addressed what the recommendations of the
committee should cover, and identified several technical policy issues, including the buildable
lands inventory, possible code revisions, the efficient provision of infrastructure, business
assistance/incentives, business climate, and work force.
Mr. Forbes asked the committee if it wished to meet as a full committee or if it was ready to
break into subcommittees. The committee agreed to meet again as a full committee before
deciding to form subcommittees. :
Mr. Forbes asked the committee if members had suggestions for other issues.
Mr. Bowerman believed the list was a good one but felt the process was missing a visioning
component. He recalled the mayor's suggestion the committee focus on a common vision rather
than obstacles. ' '
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 11
Members discussed the concern. While Ms. Pierce did not disagree, she pointed out the
community had heard that message in the past but had yet to figure out how to accomplish it, and
it might not affect local decisions as they related to projects. She was also concerned the
committee could create a common vision without agreeing on the necessary implementation
steps. Ms. Smith agreed. She did not think the committee could take on the task of creating a
vision, but it could frame the debate for the community on a few key items.
Ms. Rygas expressed concern that Mr. Forbes' list did not address the issue of community
polarization, which she wished to address head-on. She suggested the second bullet listed under
the heading of what the committee's recommendations should cover be revised to read "A
process and/or infrastructure to ensure at least some of these policies get acted on, now and in
the future." She suggested that part of the problem of polarization was a lack of an appropriate
infrastructure. Ms. Rygas also suggested that the issue was related to the representational
structure. If the community agreed that to work with businesses, Eugene needed policies that
can be implemented quickly, the right people have to be at the table initially to build public trust,
and she did not think that had occurred. Mr. Forbes' a~greed the committee had a role in creating
what he termed the "rules of engagement" for the City Council on how to move forward.
Ms. Rygas urged the committee to work on the process issues 'first.
Ms. Smith suggested that the document be revised with a mention of leveraging the University of
Oregon as an economic asset.
Mr. Goldsmith noted the distribution of a document he had authored entitled Bill's Principles of
Economic Development.
Rich Linton, Vice President for Graduate Research Stui:ties at the University of Oregon, joined
the committee to discuss economic development obstacles and opportunities in Eugene. Mr.
Linton briefing reviewed his background, noting his experience at the Research Triangle in
North Carolina, which had been in existence for 5 0 years. 'He said worked to connect research
activities at the University to the commercial market for the benefit of Oregon.
Mr. Linton made the following points:
· The City needs an economic development plan and tools to implement the plan
· The City should support other local business, development efforts in Eugene, such
as the Metro Partnership and chamber of commerce
· The City should provide great recognition and support to the University as an
economic engine .
· The City's economic development strategy should actively promote the expansion
of University facilities to serve its evolving programs, students and employees,
and the community's residents
· The City should encourage Eugene's connections to regional efforts, such as those
centered around technology-based economic development (TBED)
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 12
· The City should support and leverage new initiatives at the state level, including
those derived from the Oregon Council on Knowledge and Economic
Development and the Oregon Business Plan
· Economic development is not in opposition to environmental quality
· The City's Planning and Development Department needs to be better supported
and adequately staffed to implement the' community's economic vision
· Encourage strategies such as enterprise zones, urban renewal districts, and tax
incentives to grow the tax base and create high-quality jobs
Speaking to Eugene's connections to regional efforts, Mr. Linton said there was a regional
organization in place to support that, the Southern Willamette Research Corridor, which was
working on a new vision and a legislative advocacy agency.
Speaking to the issue of statewide initiatives, Mr. Linton noted the formation of the Oregon
Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI). The institute will focus on the
commercialization of new materials and devices th~,t have broad application to energy systems,
environmental mediation, biosensors, and safer manufacturing processes. He said the University
would have a lead role among the universities and the institute would be built in Eugene. Mr.
Linton commended the many initiatives arising out of the Oregon Business Plan, many of which
tied state incentives to local activities.
Ms. Pierce urged Mr. Linton to be clear about what the University actually needed from the City
as many of the items he listed were very aspirational and somewhat vague.
Ms. Pierce suggested that the University also had an obligation to present opportunities to the
City and work with it jointly and consistently to forward those opportunities. She advocated for
a two-way dialogue to begin. Mr. Linton agreed. Speaking to the question of what the
University needed, he specifically noted the need for support for the Riverfront Research Park
and urban renewal in that area and support for the University's nanotechnology efforts, which
was a high priority for Governor Ted Kulongoski. Mr. Linton said the University was trying to
communicate more about what it was doing so people could advocate for it.
Ms. Pierce said that occasionally, as much as the University advocated for something like the
Riverfront Research Park, another element of the University was the leading opponent to it,
which sent a mixed message to the community. Mr. Linton concurred. He said the University
encouraged an open and free exchange of ideas and it would never speak with a single voice.
Diverse opinions would always exist, and he agreed that OOmplicated the relationship.
Responding to a question from Mr. Proudfoot, Mr. Linton said urban renewal and the Riverfront
Research Park were high priorities for the University. He hoped to get companies such as
Molecular Probes closer to the University. If that occurred, the next discussion was how to best
redevelop the properties Molecular Probes was vacating to ~the benefit of the community; he
suggested that might include the establishment of an' enterprise zone.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 13
Committee's Next Steps
Mr. Moore reviewed a list of the issues that had been raised at the meeting, which were recorded
on flip charts. Mr. Forbes said the list would be an outline for the committee's next discussion.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the committee develop guidelines to help the council make decisions
with a high degree of consensus.
The committee agreed to meet again on May 3, 2004, at 2 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 14
AGENDA
MEETING 4: ISSUES AND POLICIES
MAY 3, 2004
2:00 - 5:00 P.M.
ATRIUM B~LD!NG
SLOAT CONFERENqE ROOM
99 W. 10TH AVENUE '
WELCOME JIM FORBES, COMMITTEE CHAIR
APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING #2 AND #3 ALL
PRINCIPLES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PRESENTATION TOM BOWERMAN
DISCUSSION ALL
ISSUES AND POLICIES
DISCUSSION ALL
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS AND DIRECTION JIM FORBES
COMMITTEE'S NEXT STEPS ALL
MINUTES
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Sloat Conference Room--Atrium Building
99 West ! 0th Avenue
May 3, 2004
2 p.m.
PRESENT:
Committee: Jim Forbes, Chair; Tom Bowerman, Marcia Edwards, Bill Goldsmith, Don Kahle, Steve
Korth, Michael Phinney, Gretchen Pierce, Marvin Re'Voal, Rusty Rexius, Jana Rygas,
Kathy Smith, Ellen Teninty, Craig Wanicheck.
Staff: Planning and Development Director To/n Coyle; Ann Munroe, Mike Sullivan, Planning
and Development Department; Terry Moore, Anne Fifield, ECONorthwest.
Absent: Kartar Khalsa, Joshua Proudfoot, committee members.
I. WELCOME
Mr. Forbes called the meeting of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development to order. At his
request, those present introduced themselves.
II. APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING #2 AND #3
Mr. Korth, seconded by Mr. Rexius, moved to approve minutes from
Meeting #2 and #3. The motion passed unanimously, 14:0.
III. PRINCIPLES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Forbes reminded the committee that it had homework from the last meeting and asked them to
forward their rankings to Mr. Moore for consolidation.
Mr. Moore referred to an April 28, 2004 memorandum from him to the committee that provided
background and a summary of the issues from Meeting 3.
Mr. Forbes proposed spending some time focusing on principles for economic development at this
meeting and then addressing issues and policies. He referred to a handout Mr. Bowerman had developed
entitled General Principles for Economic Development in Eugene.
Ms. Smith arrived at 2:10 p.m.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development May 3, 2004 Page 1
Referring to Mayor Torrey's remarks atthe April 20, 2004 meeting, Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Torrey
had spoken repeatedly about the conflict in the community. Mr. Bowerman said the City of Eugene faced
a serious dilemma of polarizing forces of economic development. He said there was a full spectrum of
what that represented, while those on the committee represented middle 50 percent. He added that
polarization was both good and bad. He said it was good because the polarization was coming to the
forefront, while the bad took time away from dealing with more constructive things. Mr. Bowerman said
he felt there was an opportunity to find common ground that would enable the committee to do the work
the Mayor and the City Council charged the committee with. He said the community had experienced
periods of economic growth in the past, and those occurred when the community had a common vision.
He added that the shared vision was not currently in place. He said it was important to honor the
controversies in the community and to work through them thoughtfully rather than becoming polarized.
Mr. Bowerman referred the handout, noting it contained the following assumptions and principles:
Assumptions:
1. Eugene has a reputation for controversy in economic development efforts.
2. It is desirable to reduce controversy in this arena.
3. Controversy could be reduced by appealing to a broader segment of the population.
4. Spending scarce public resources on economic development programs will not be universally
popular.
5. Broader support from the community is possible ~.~ narrowing the objectives (focusing on
sustainability) while broadening flexibility (being more creative in solving prolems).
Principles
1. Honor differing views: controversy is an opportunity to solve problems.
2. Promote creative problem solving and look for new ways to solve persistent old problems.
3. Make sustainability a screen for providing forms of public support.
4. Target retention, formation, and expansion of locally-based economic activity (home grown).
5. Support businesses that minimize costs to the public (externalized costs) and that increase
environmental and public benefits.
6. Aim any business recruitment and incentives at businesses with employment pay-scale of at least
two times minimum wage level.
7. Encourage enterprise or activities that produce the best value over their life cycle versus the
lowest first cost.
8. Be willing to commit resources to public/private and public/public partnerships.
9. Streamline layers of protocol and bureaucracy.
I0. Apply support uniformly irrespective of size of activity (small deserves same service as large).
Referring to the five assumptions he had proposed, Mr. Bowerman said sustainability was the key
element in the assumptions. He said the City of Eugene had already devoted a significant amount of
energy to this process. He offered to distribute electronically the document previously developed,
including a background paper on sustainability from 1999; a very 'informative discussion paper developed
by City staff in 2002 entitled Potential Economic Strategies, Tools and Actions; and a resolution adopting
a statement of intent regarding the application of sustainability principles to the City of Eugene in April
1999. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the committee acknowledge the work previously done by the City.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development May 3, 2004 Page 2
He said he understood that staff was of the opinion that while the work had been completed, it had not
been embraced across the board as City policy and had not been included in the economic development
strategies. He said other communities had adopted sustainability as a major component of doing business
and had done so very systematically and very comprehensively.
Mr. Bowerman said the activities of other communities should be considered. He said the Mayor's
Committee was not forging new ground while at the same time the City of Eugene was not so far behind
that it would not be able to join those who were working at the cutting edge of pressing issues in our
culture.
Mr. Kahle asked if the City's adopted statement of intent related to'practices for City departments or was
designed to apply to the types of businesses we were trying to attract. Mr. Bowerman replied it was not
specifically oriented to the committee's charge. Mr. Bowerman reviewed the sustainability principles he
had referred to.
Ms. Teninty asked Mr. Bowerman to provide some examples of Principle 7. Mr. Bowerman replied that
the real question when expending public resources for economic development was: do we do so in such as
way to get a quick bang for the buck that does not deliver over a long time, versus something that might
cost more up front but delivered long term results? He added that it was essential to develop criteria and
establish methodology to gauge the success of the criteria,' and to avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions.
Mr. Rexius asked how an acceptable and/or sustainable business was determined, what did sustainability
mean, and who would decide? He said he felt it was the job of the committee to develop policy and not to
decide what was sustainable.
Addressing Principle 6, Mr. Re'voal said skill level needed to be addressed when considering wage level.
Ms. Teninty said she understood that any business would do what it wanted to do, but she felt the
principles were relevant to the scarce public resources in economic development. Businesses would be
supported that did not create another need for public support, such as food stamps, because employees did
not earn enough money to support themselves.
Mr. Goldsmith said given the vagaries of sustainability as a concei3t, it confirmed the conflict that existed
in the community addressed by Mr. Bowerman. He added that susyainability represented a vague set of
ethics that formed the focal point for many discussions in the community.
Mr. Wanichek said his principles were different from those proposed by Mr. Bowerman related to
sustainability, pay scale of at least two times the minimum w~tge level, and the City Budget Committee.
He said as individual issues were debated by the committee, 'everyone's principles would be clarified.
Mr. Korth concurred with Mr. Wanichek's comments thatlit was difficult to create general principles in a
vague sense. He added when particular issues and policy standards were discussed, principles would
apply in those discussions.
Ms. Pierce said many of the principles, particularly 3-7, were reflective of a year's worth of discussion
that took place ten years ago on many of the same issues. At thaf time, concepts for use of City controlled
incentives to determine if incentives were warranted were identified, and what level of assistance would
be appropriate, depending upon on how the criteria were weighed. She said the recommendation at that
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development May 3, 2004 Page 3
time was to use predetermined criteria to make decisions about when to provide assistance or subsidies to
businesses beyond what would be provided to all businesses. She added she struggled with the concepts
of family wage jobs or wages two times the minimum wage.
In response to a question from Mr. Kahle, Ms. Pierce stated she did not know why the City Council did
not adopt the proposals generated ten years ago.
Mr. Forbes asked committee members to indicate if they thought further discussion on general principles
was needed or if they would become clear during the policies discussion. There was general consensus to
move forward with policy discussions.
IV. ISSUES AND POLICIES
Mr. Moore returned the ranking tool collected at the beginning of the meeting and explained the ranking
process that he used. He reported that only subcategories receixfing ten points or more were identified,
with the following distribution of points:
· Land development-25 votes
<~ Land Supply: Buildable Land Inventory- 1'5 points
o Code Revisions- 13 points
o Infrastructure/Public Facilities 19 points
c~ Take advantage of vacant buildings
· Business Assistance/Incentives-25 votes
o Enterprise zone- 16 points
· Coordination/Partnership/Institutional Infrastruc:ture -28 votes
o Businesses coordination- 10 points
o City/County coordination- 10 Points
· Getting Sustained Implementation- 36 votes
o The Vision/decision guidelines- 15 points
c> Sustainable/Consistent through Political and Business Cycles- 25 points
Mr. Kahle distributed a handout entitled Economic DevelopmentfOr Eugene Must Focus on the Whole,
Not Only the Parts that addressed creating sustainability, using the Portland Development Commission
(PDC) model.
Mr. Wanicheck, seconded by Ms. Edwards, moved to consider the top
six sub-issues identified in the exercise, based upon the number of points
received. The motion passed 13:1.
Ms. Pierce addressed Mr. Kahle's suggestion of using the PDC as a model noting that the Lane
Metropolitan Partnership was established to provide a tool for regional economic development. She
questioned whether another group would be able to be effective.
Mr. Coyle described the various local bodies such as the Eugene Planning Commission and the Eugene
Water and Electric Board that provided some level of advising on local economic development issues.
Referring to the PDC, Mr. Sullivan said that the PDC acted autonomously from the Portland City
Council.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic DeveloPment May 3, 2004 Page 4
Mr. Goldsmith expressed a desire to maintain the concept of regionalism.
Ms. Rygas noted it was important to develop a methodology/structure and balance it with the greater
public interest. She said thoughtful consideration regarding membership was key to having a commission
autonomous from the City Council.
Mr. Kahle proposed that the body be named the Eugene Development and Conservation Commission,
with the charge of developing the same number of acres as those preserved on an annual basis, within or
contiguous to the urban growth boundary.
Ms. Pierce said she would protest the proposal because the available land would be exhausted in a short
period of time if it were adopted.
Mr. Re' Voal said the only way he could see the proposal working was if it assumed the role currently
held by the Lane Metropolitan Partnership and be autonomous from both City Councils.
Mr. Korth said he was impressed with Mr. Bowers and the PDC model, and suggested that this committee
should study the PDC model.
Summarizing the discussion, Mr. Forbes asl(etl what option.s were available for achieving the first goal,
and what work should be requested of staff and Mr. Moore.
Ms. Pierce stated that creation of an enterprise zone, good for ten years, insulated projects from political
issues and changes on the City Council. She added that once established, urban renewal districts were
also taken out of the political arena. She said that a development commission could be very focused on
getting the best out of an enterprise zone or urban renewal district.
Ms. Teninty said she would support a recommendation that the committee work towards coordination and
structural partnerships of the University of Oregon (UO), Lane County, other cities in the area, and the
regional business communities, to make a statement that regional coordination would contribute to stable
economic planning.
Ms. Rygas said it felt like the discussion kept coming back to the perception that there were some
segments of the community that felt if the right tools were Jn plac6, economic development goals could be
achieved but for the presence of those who opposed such action getting in the way. She added the central
issue needed to be addressed to enable economic development to be successful in the community.
Mr. Wanichek said there were some things that consensus would never be reached on. He supported the
concept of enterprise zones coupled with a Planning and Development Commission to address overall
planning goals.
Mr. Goldsmith expressed support to pursue a regional focus w~tn a county-wide commission.
Mr. Kahle, seconded by Ms: Pierce, moved to form a subcommittee to
research the feasibility of creating a regional group based upon the
Portland Development Commission to pursue economic development
issues. The motion passed 13:1.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development May 3, 2004 Page 5
Ms. Pierce suggested considering converting the Lane Metropolitan Partnership to fulfill the role in the
motion. Ms. Edwards said the problem was perceived as a Eugene issue rather than a regional one.
Mr. Coyle stated that the PDC governance model could not be used on a regional basis.
A brief discussion on the differences between the PDC and the City of Eugene Urban Renewal Agency
and urban renewal policy in general followed.
Mr. Forbes appointed the following people to serve on the subcommittee: Mr. Bowerman, Mr.
Goldsmith, Mr. Korth, Mr. Re'Voal, Ms. Rygas, Ms. Teninty, Mr. Wanicheck, and Mr. Kahle serving as
chair.
Mr. Moore opened a discussion on Infrastructure/Public Facilities. In response to Ms. Teninty's question,
Mr. Coyle replied there was a strong linkage with infrastructure but limited developable land in support of
economic development. Mr. Sullivan added that air service was a perennial concern.
Mr. Forbes sensed there was no compelling need to continue conversations on the Infrastructure/Public
Facilities topic.
Mr. Forbes introduced Enterprise Zones. Ms. Pierce stated she supported establishing enterprise zones.
A discussion about the merits of enterprise zones followed.
Ms. Pierce, seconded by Ms. Edwards, moved to form a subcommittee to
define a recommendation for an enterprise zone and develop enterprise
zone criteria. The motion na~ecl ,nanimously, 14:0.
Mr. Forbes appointed the following people to serve on the subcommittee: Mr. Korth, Ms. Smith, and Mr.
Rexius serving as chair.
Mr. Forbes introduced Land Supply and noted the need to have an independent survey of available
buildable land. Mr. Moore stated that the current thinking on buildable land was that planners took a look
at a 20 year need, while developers looked at the short run; thus supporting the concept of looking at the
issue from both the long and the short term needs.
Mr. Wanicheck, seconded by Mr. Rexius, moved to form a subcommittee
to authorize a commercial/residential/industrial land study as defined by
the State of Oregon that looked at available lands.
Mr. Kahle, seconded by Mr. Re' Voal, offered an amendment to make
the motion tentative until the end of the Committee's deliberations to
allow recommendations to be packaged strategically. The motion failed,
11:3.
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Pierce, offered an amendment to limit
the study to commercial/industrial lands. Mr. Wanicheck accepted the
amendment and called the qOestion. The motion, as amended, passed
12:2.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development May 3, 2004 Page 6
V. COMMITTEE'S NEXT STEPS
Mr. Forbes reviewed what needs to be done before the next meeting. He said the subcommittees created
at this meeting needed to meet as soon as possible and reviewed possible staffing options.
Mr. Moore suggested committee members review their priorities in light of the discussions at the meeting,
and send their top five issues to him.
The committee agreed to meet again on at 2 p.m. on May 24, 2004.
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m:\2004\planning and development departmenfineighborhood housing and community
developmenfimayor's economic development committee\mced040503.doc
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Deve,opment May 3, 2004 Page 7
AGENDA
MEETING 5: ISSUES AND POLICIES, PART 2
MAY 24, 2004
2:00 - 5:00 P.M.
ATRIUM BUIEDiNG.
SLOAT CONFERENCE ROOM
99 W. 10TH AVENU[~
WELCOME 'J!M FORBES, COMMITTEE CHAIR
APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING #3 ALL
SUMMARY OF MEETING #4 JIM FORBES
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
Enterprise Zone Rusty Rexius, Subcommittee Chair
Discussion All
Governance Structure Don Kahle, Subcommittee Chair
Discussion All
ISSUES AND POLICIES
Summary of Committee's Responses Anne Fifield
Discussion of Results All
COMMITTEE'S NEXT STEPS ALL
MINUTES
Mayor's Economic Development Committee
Sloat Room - Atrium Building - 99 West 10th Avenue
May 24, 2004
2 p.m.
PRESENT: Tom Bowerman, Marcia Edwards, Jim Forbes, Chair; Bill Goldsmith, Don Kahle, Gretchen
Pierce, Rusty Rexius, Jana Rygas, Kathy Smith, Ellen Teninty, Craig Wanichek, members;
Terry Moore, Anne Fifield, Tom Coyle, Ann Munroe, Denny Braud, Mike Sullivan, staff.
I. WELCOME
Mr. Forbes convened the meeting at 2:05 pm. He announc6d that he was retiring and moving to Austin
Texas. He said he would be present through June 28, 2'004. He' said he had suggested to the Mayor that
Kathy Smith would take over as the committee chair
II. APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING NUMBER THREE
Mr. Rexius, seconded by Ms. Pierce, moved to approve the minutes of Meeting
Three as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
IlL SUMMARY OF MEETING NUMBER 4
Mr. Forbes said there had been committee interest around enterprise zones. He added that there had been
agreement about a buildable land analysis.
Mr. Forbes read the charge of the committee. He said the committee had addressed its charge and said the
nature of the charge required that the city be examined from a local :perspective as opposed to a statewide
viewpoint.
Mr. Forbes said meeting six would begin with a summary of issues and policies that had been discussed.
He added that the committee would rank those policies and establish a priority of implementation. He
expressed a desire to wrap the process in two more meetings.
IV. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
Enterprise Zone
Denny Braud said enterprise zones were a state program. He said most states offered an incentive program
to create jobs. He said there were 49 enterprise zones in the State of Oregon. He noted that Eugene's zone
had expired in 1997. He noted that all 49 spots were full but noted that 27 zones would be expiring in the
next few years. He said basic eligibility requirement was non-retail oriented. He said companies had to
increase employment by ten percent to qualify for the program. He said investments had to be at least
$50,000 to qualify. He noted that only new investment was eligible for tax exemption. He noted that the
exemptions would cease if jobs were reduced or the business relocated.
Mr. Braud said the City of Eugene would be an Urban Enterprise Zone which would allow for additional
criteria for qualification. He said Eugene had one of the most active zones in the State before it had been
discontinued. He said 57 companies had participated in Eugene's program. He outlined the progress of
Eugene's zone. He noted that it had been a small business developrhent program until the involvement of
Hynix.
Discussion
In response to a question from Mr. Forbes regarding whether there was a limit to the number of business
that could qualify, Mr. Braud said there were no limits.
In response to a question from Mr. Wanichek regarding whether the additional requirements imposed by
the City and the County had always been in place, Mr. Bi'aud noted that the additional requirements only
applied to the companies grandfathered into the program after the zone expired.
In response to a question from Mr. Goldsmith regarding whether there had been any cost benefit analysis
done for the economic development program, Mr. Braud said there had been graduate studies on Hynix in
particular and noted that there had been some other studies but noted that Eugene had not commissioned a
cost benefit study.
Mr. Goldsmith stressed the importance of defining the possible benefits of such a program before
implementing it again.
Mr. Rexius said the local impact of the previous program had b~en huge. He said his subcommittee had
looked at the data with Hynix excluded. He noted that Eugene'S program had the only program in the
State with extra requirements besides the City of Portland~
Mr. Rexius said the subcommittee's recommendation was to move forward with an enterprise zone with
the State criteria as the only criteria and ifa company elected to apply for the 5 year exemption then to use
the State requirements for that as well.
Ms. Smith stressed that 86 percent of the companies in the ente?prise zone had been small companies that
had used the program to accelerate their success rates. She added that when extra conditions were added it
had an adverse affect on the participating businesses.
Ms. Edwards, seconded by Ms. Pierce, moved to accept the recommendation of the
subcommittee as stated, including the addition of land adjacent to the old zone.
In response to a question from Mr. Bowerman regarding wh~ether there had been a study to show how the
participating businesses would have progressed without the zone, Mr. Braud said a committee had
examined the zone before it expired. He said the tax exemption was only one of the factors in an
investment decision. He said there were arguments on both sides but noted that there were at least two
companies in Eugene that had recently moved to Springfield specifically because it had an enterprise zone.
MINUTES--Mayor's Economic Development Committee May 24, 2004 Page 2
In response to a comment from Mr. Bowerman regarding whether there would have been benefit
regardless of the program, Mr. Wanichek said he was convinced of the positive results of the economic
program. He said Hynix was the largest tax payer in the City.
Ms. Rygas stressed the importance of increasing the number of living wage jobs. She said giving tax
incentives required verifying that the companies would provide those jobs. She raised concern that the
criteria were not adequate to address the question of median wages. She stressed that Economic
Development programs needed to be held to the standard adding to the public benefit.
Ms. Pierce said family wage jobs were not the only thing beir~g sought. She said any job would add to the
public benefit and said she knew of no reason of not moving forward.
Ms. Rygas said there were only limited amounts of space for commercial development in the City. She
stressed the importance of filling in that space with family wage jobs.
Mr. Rexius reiterated the comments of Ms. Pierce. He added that the low wage job providers like big box
stores were not allowed to participate in the program.
Mr. Wanichek noted that compensation criteria had to be 'met to qualify for entrance into the enterprise
zone. He said that if there was no enterprise zone there would be lower wage than family wage jobs. He
reiterated an enterprise zone would attract higher paying jobs that would not be there without the program.
In response to a question from Mr. Kahle regarding whether development had slowed after Eugene's zone
had expired, Mr. Braud showed maps of the old zone boundaries. He said that industrial construction had
been stagnant since then but noted that this was more of'a national ~rend and was no only related to tax
incentives.
Ms. Rygas said it was hard for her to understand why other additional criteria were not being considered.
She suggested a more thorough look at additional criteria.
Mr. Forbes suggested adding a three year review for the motion.
Mr. Braud said discontinuing a ten year enterprise zone after three years would inhibit the chances of
getting a new enterprise zone in the future. ' '
Mr. Bowerman noted that those who had participated in th¢ gone would not like to change the rules in the
middle of the game.
Mr. Rexius said additional criteria would make Eugene's' zone uncompetitive since no other communities
had additional criteria.
Mr. Kahle said there would always be divisions in the pubiic around the perceptions of tax incentives. He
suggested offering incentives based on location so that there Would be no development in green fields.
MINUTES--Mayor's Economic Development Committee May 24, 2004 Page 3
Ms. Teninty said she was not in favor of no wage criteria. She suggested offering tax incentives for small
companies to help them compete.
Mr. Wanichek said that idea would make incentives to not pay people well.
Mr. Braud said larger companies might legally question offering tax incentives on that basis.
Mr. Bowerman said he would vote against the motion because he needed to research the matter more
thoroughly.
Mr. Goldsmith stressed the importance of accessibility of smaller businesses to the zone. He said more
incentives were needed to get small businesses involved:
Mr. Coyle said there were impediments to vacant land other than redevelopment. He said the market
looked to those issues of redevelopment. He said impacts were imbedded in the price of the land.
Ms. Pierce stressed the importance of thinking about the criteha. She suggested looking for an alternative
to simply following state guidelines. She suggested an additional meeting to study the matter.
Mr. Wanichek recommended examining the prior set of criteria. He said he was comfortable with the
current recommendation but said he would be willing to examine the possibility of adding more criteria to
the 4 or 5 year exemptions.
Ms. Edwards withdrew her motion with the Permission of the second.
Ms. Rygas suggested that those interested should participate with the original subcommittee. There was
general consensus.
Governance Structure
Mr. Kahle said his subcommittee had met the Friday following the last full committee meeting. He said
his subcommittee had been unable to come to a consensus on his proposal.
Ms. Rygas said a conversation had been started that needed t~o be ~6ntinued in more depth.
Mr. Wanichek said there had been much of the same discussion that had taken place over enterprise zones.
Discussion
Mr. Goldsmith said there was lack of a clear direction in Which to move forward.
Mr. Wanichek said he wanted to hear other ideas about what additional criteria were needed.
Ms. Edwards said there was a division among the committee over..whether it was being too restrictive or
not restrictive enough
MINUTES--Mayor's Economic Development Committee May 24, 2004 Page 4
Mr. Kahle said there was also a division over whether the committee was being too prescriptive or not
prescriptive enough.
Mr. Forbes said he wanted the committee to find areas were it was unified.
V. ISSUES AND POLICIES
Summary of Committee's Responses
Ms. Fifield said there had been a lot of agreement on issues among the committee on economic
development issues. She outlined the responses she had received from the committee members. She noted
that there was less agreement among policies. She outlined the responses contained in the meeting packet.
Discussion of Results
Mr. Forbes stressed the importance of working together.
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Rygas, moved to adopt bullet number one under
'Development Code policies.'
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Bowerman said the current development code had specific rules that had to be adhered to. He said
there was no way to find alternatives to the current code because its language was so specific.
Ms. Pierce said she had found the development code policies very valuable as a set of guiding principals.
She recommended adopting the bulleted items as guiding principles..
Mr. Coyle said that level of direction would be too much. 'He said irying to catch too many things in the
zoning code would make it too restrictive. He recommended using the principles outlined by Susan Muir
in the memo that was distributed to the committee membe{s.
Ms. Rygas raised concern that the guiding principles for the code wer, e not proscriptive enough.
Mr. Bowerman said two additional criteria of what the code should be were legality and fairness. He
stressed the importance of adding fairness.
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Goldsmith, moved that a recommendation be
given to the City Council to explore the use of a performance based code.
Mr. Coyle said he would not recommend a performance based code. 'He said the code would be revisited
at the two year point. He said a performance based approach would be an 'add on' that staff was not ready
for. He said there was a lot of house keeping to be done.before that was tried.
Mr. Rexius said he wanted to adopt the memo from Ms. Muir first.
MINUTES--Mayor's Economic Development Committee May 24, 2004 Page 5
Mr. Bowerman said the LUCU work had discussions over usihg performance based code.
Mr. Bowerman withdrew his motion.
Ms. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Wanichek, moved to recommend to the City Council
that the May 6th "Guiding Principles" document be adopted.
Ms. Muir said an alternative path for development was already being examined by staff.
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Rygas, moved to amend the motion by adding "fair"
to the list. The motion passed unanimously.
The main motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Rygas suggested actively pursuing sustainability in the market place.
In response to a question from Ms. Pierce regarding what her goal was, Ms. Rygas said it was to attract
more environmentally friendly jobs into the community.
Mr. Rexius said the committee was there to create jobs. He said he was fine with sustainable jobs coming
to the community but did not want to exclude other businesses that did not meet that definition.
Mr. Forbes called for input from the committee on whether it. Wished to move forward on that issue.
Mr. Bowerman said it was his highest priority.
Mr. Kahle said he was confused about how the word 'sustainable' was being used.
There was general discussion over the definition of sustainablel Mr: Bowerman said economic policy was
based on fossil fuels. He said development had to meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future people to meet their needs. He said he was' interested in finding economic policy that
would help the area weather the change from fossil fuels to other forms of energy.
In response to a question from Ms. Edwards as to how that fit into the task at hand, Mr. Bowerman said
that attracting or building certain types of businesses would work'toward future goals.
In response to a question, Mr. Kahle said there was no tool devel.$ped to choose businesses in such a
manner.
Mr. Forbes called for input from the committee on the issues listed in the summary.
Mr. Wanichek, seconded by Mr. Rexius, moved to have staff modify the land use code
to make it simpler and provide a yearlY r~view.
Ms. Pierce raised concern over yearly review.
MINUTES--Mayor's Economic Development Committee May 24, 2004 Page 6
Mr. Coyle said a yearly review was something that could be beneficial. He said he would take it as staff
direction to see how a yearly review could be implemented.
Mr. Wanichek withdrew the motion.
Ms. Pierce called for an update of agreements that had been reached so far.
There was general discussion over the idea of reinstating an Ombudsman position.
Ms. Edwards said she was not in favor of adding the position, .ahd added that the charge of the committee
did not allow being so specific about positions offered by the City.
In response to a question from Mr. Forbes regarding .what he woulct aesire regarding such a position, Mr.
Coyle said he would recommend an increase in busipess assistance as well as a position for resolving
administrative issues.
Mr. Bowerman said an Ombudsman was a person that was put over a problem. He recommended solving
the problems.
Mr. Coyle said he would bring back a recommendation to the next meeting.
VI. NEXT STEPS
Mr. Coyle said he would come back with some defining parameters around fairness.
Ms. Rygas called for ideas from staff on other tools that had proved successful for other communities for
economic development.
The next meeting was scheduled for June 14, from 1- 4 pm.
The meeting adjourned at 5 pm.
(Recorded by Joe Sams)
c: I Userlcc lG R0 30212. wpd
MINUTES--Mayor's Economic Development Committee May 24, 2004 Page 7
AGENDA
MEETING 6: ISSUES AND POLICIES, PART 3
JUNE 14, 2004
1:00 - 4:00 P.M.
ATRIUM BUILDING
SLOAT CONFERENCE ROOM
99 W. 10TH AVENUE
WELCOME J~M FORBES, COMMITTEE CHAIR
APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING #4 ALL
REVIEW MAYOR'S CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE ALL
SUMMARY OF MEETING #5 JIM FORBES
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE'S AGREEMENTS TO DATE JIM FORBES
IMPACTS OF B~G BOX STORES-NEW CHARGE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ALL
GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO THE ZONING CODE TOM COYLE
Discussion All
BUSINESS FACILITATOR PROPOSAL TOM COYLE
Discussion All
ENTERPRISE ZONE REPORT RUSTY REXIUS, SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR
Discussion All
OTHER PROPOSALS ALL
COMMITTEE'S NEXT STEPS ALL
MINUTES
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Sloat Conference Room--Atrium Building
99 West 10th Avenue
June 14, 2004
1 p.m.
PRESENT:
Committee: Kathy Smith, incoming Chair; Jim Forbes, outgoing Chair; Tom Bowerman, Marcia
Edwards, Bill Goldsmith, Don Kahle, Steve Korth, Gretchen Pierce, Joshua Proudfoot,
Marvin Re'Voal, Rusty Rexius, Jana Rygas, Ellen Teninty, Craig Wanicheck.
Staff: Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle; Ann Munroe, Mike Sullivan, Denny
Braut, Planning and Development Department; Terry Moore, Anne Fifield,
ECONorthwest.
Absent: Kartar Khalsa, Michael Phinney, committee members.
I. WELCOME
Ms. Smith called the meeting of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development (MCED) to order at
1:06 p.m. She explained that Mr. Forbes would be joining the committee at about 1:45 p.m. and had
asked Ms. Smith to chair the meeting until his arrival.
II. APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING tt4
Ms. Pierce, seconded by Mr. Rexius, moved to approve minutes from
Meeting #4.
Mr. Bowerman submitted a correction to page 6, last paragraph, second line (omission in italics,
correction in bold), changing "commercial/residential to "commercial/industrial."
Ms. Teninty submitted a correction to page 3, paragraph 7, line 3 (addition in bold), "... because
employees did not earn enough money to support themselves."
The minutes were deemed approved with revisions.
IlL REVIEW MAYOR'S CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
Ms. Smith read the Mayor's charge to the committee. Noting that the charge required the committee to
submit a final report to the City Council in June 2004, Ms. Smith said a City Council work session on the
report is scheduled for August 9, 2004.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 1
Mr. Goldsmith said he had attended a United Way of Lane County meeting the previous week, and
wanted to bring to the committee's attention a report available on the United Way website
(www.unitedwaylane.org) on a recent survey United Way had conducted on the State of Caring in Lane
County in 2004. Mr. Goldsmith said the principal problem reported was paying for medical care, but
also cited were significant increases in problems tied to the local economy. He urged members to read
the report and noted that one Eugene City Councilor attending the meeting had mentioned referring some
of the economy-related survey findings to MCED.
IV. SUMMARY OF MEETING #5 AND AGREEMENTS TO DATE
Referring to Ms. Fifield's e-mailed notes to committee members, Ms. Smith summarized actions from
Meeting 5 and committee agreements to date. She said the four agreements to date capture the essence of
what may come forward as recommendations to be included in the committee's report to the City
Council. The four reported agreements to date were:
1. A buildable lands analysis of available commercial and industrial land consistent with state
principles should be conducted.
2. There appeared to be consensus that infrastructure in Eugene functions well, and that it should
continue to be regularly maintained and updated.
3. The Guiding Principles for Zoning Code Revisions should be adopted by the City Council (with
upcoming language modifications). The Code should be intuitive, adaptable, enabling, logical,
and fair, and should be reviewed annually.
4. The committee agreed that a business facilitator could improve the city's business climate.
Ms. Smith noted that the consensus on infrastructure was not in the form of a motion, but discussed and
agreed upon by the committee. She said if the committee still agrees, it should perhaps adopt the
agreement by formal motion. Ms. Smith said proposals for the zoning code and business facilitator
recommendations would be discussion items later in the meeting.
V. IMPACTS OF BIG BOX STORES
Ms. Smith said this item was a new charge to MCED from the City Council. She asked for discussion.
Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Mr. Kahle that the committee
decline engaging in the question of big box stores because the scope of
the question exceeds the time limit given the committee, as well as the
charge given it. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Kahle wondered if the committee should be concerned that it had been given that charge and that a
City Councilor at the United Way meeting had suggested referring other matters to MCED, given the
committee's timeline of a final report by the end of June 2004. Ms. Pierce felt there was a tendency to
create committees to study an issue as a delaying tactic when the City Council did not want to deal with
the issue itself. She said the committee's charge to research, analyze, and investigate big box stores could
be a very complicated process, even it were to meet for another six months.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 2
Mr. Bowerman said he believed the City Council should be working like a board of directors, providing
broad policy and not micro-managing, and expecting them to deal with questions such as the social and
economic implications of big boxes which tends to be getting into the micro-managing level. To some
extent, he said, it was appropriate for the council to give that complex question to another entity to deal
with, but his motion expressed his belief that taking on the assignment exceeded MCED's capacity, given
its timeline. He said the City Council deserves a thoughtful response from the committee on why it does
not think the big box analysis can be done within its timeline and how the committee thinks the study
might be done.
Ms. Rygas said she thought the model of referring more complex issues to committees made sense. She
summarized the reason MCED did not take on the issue as being that the committee was almost at the end
of its timeframe and was hardly done with its original task. She agreed that the committee should not take
on the question, but also agreed that the City Council should not have to deal with it by themselves.
Mr. Kahle said he thought there were three issues on the table:
1. Should MCED take on the big box issue? He said the committee had voted a unanimous no.
2. Should the City Council have kept it for themselves?
3. If not the City Council, then who?
Ms. Pierce said she believed the City Council had asked staffto take on the issue, and asked Mr. Coyle if
staff had in fact responded to it. Mr. Coyle said staff work had been distributed to the City Council. He
said there is a resource issue, and to go further at either staff or committee level will take program dollars.
Mr. Forbes arrived at the meeting at 1:25 p.m.
Ms. Fifield noted that the staff report on the issue read as if the only basis for evaluating a big box
application was whether it was zoned properly, and she said that was why the City Council and
community were saying we need broader thinking and policy about how big boxes fit into the broader
strategy of the community, and we don't know what that strategy is. She said zoning evaluation won't
deal with broader policy and strategy. It was the kind of analysis the City Council would have asked the
committee to do, and it would be reasonable for the committee to do, but it does not have the time. She
said she thought the thoughtful statement back to the City Council would be that the committee does
understand that the community needs an overall policy and strategy to address the big box question, but
that the committee does not have the time frame to do it.
Mr. Korth asked if committee members had any willingness to offer to continue to study the big box issue
after the report is due. He said the main problem of taking the issue on seemed to be timing, that it was
an important issue for the City Council, and that he would be willing to address the issue if the committee
had the time to deal with it. Ms. Pierce said she thought part of the dilemma was that the committee was
given a certain amount of resource from ECONorthwest, and that resource was timed to come to an end at
the end of the committee's charge, so if the City Council wanted the committee to continue, there would
have to be some level of resource to do that.
Ms. Smith suggested that in the committee's report to the City Council, it include a section on other
issues, such as the big box issue, that warrant further study and suggestions on how to handle those.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 3
Ms. Rygas said she agreed with that suggestion. She further suggested that the committee include not just
a set of specific recommended tools in its report, but also overarching principles for its recommendations
that could be valuable to the City Council and to future groups working on the unfinished questions.
With assent from the committee, Ms. Smith moved to the next agenda item.
VI. GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO THE ZONING CODE
Mr. Coyle reminded committee members of their previous discussion of a May 6, 2004, memorandum
from Susan Muir, Planning Division Manager, on guiding principles for zoning code revisions. He said at
that time the committee asked staff to make some changes and refinements to the document, and the
revised draft was in the agenda packet. He reviewed the changes.
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Korth, moved to approve the draft.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Kahle pointed out the following typographical errors in the draft: (omissions in italics; additions in
bold):
· Page 1, paragraph l, next-to-last line: "...to include the suggests suggestions and hopes .... "
· Page 2, paragraph 2, line 2: "...processes that allow us to be differential deferential .... '
· Page 2, paragraph 3, line 1: "... stakeholders stakeholders' needs .... "
Mr. Kahle said he would also like to see some language in the last paragraph of the draft that
acknowledged some of the stakeholders might not be immediately adjacent to the property in question,
but might be commuters, taxpayers, or others, in addition to the applicant, neighbors, and the City, who
most people would see as traditional stakeholders. He said he thought that would reflect the spirit of the
request Ms. Rygas made at the last meeting.
Ms. Rygas said she understood that Mr. Bowerman had authored the paragraph, and she had had input on
it. She said the draft was considerably different from what she had last seen, and she wondered what the
reason was. Mr. Bowerman said he was involved in editing the paragraph with staff, and the current
language was an attempt to put stakeholders in a broader context. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Coyle
explained briefly how the draft was edited.
Ms. Rygas, seconded by Mr. Kahle, moved to change the first sentence
of the third paragraph to read "The code must recognize there will be a
variety of different stakeholders' or community needs that must be
met." (addition in bold)
Ms. Smith called for discussion.
Answering a question, Mr. Coyle said staff tended to see community needs as applicable to all zoning
decisions, and making community needs explicit in the zoning principles was fine if the committee
wanted to do that.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 4
Ms. Edwards said she felt stakeholders would bring community interests to the surface, and so the broad
definition was already covered without the addition. Ms. Pierce said she agreed with Ms. Edwards, and
said adding "community" broadened the statement to virtually no meaning.
Ms. Rygas said it was important that future readers of the statement understand what is meant by it, and
she felt including both stakeholders and community in the language made it clear that both interests
applied.
The motion passed 8:5.
Ms. Pierce noted that the motion had not passed by 75% of the members, and asked if all committee votes
needed to pass by 75%, or just final recommendations.
Mr. Goldsmith said final recommendations needed to pass by 75%, but the point he had raised previously
was that if underlying motions do not pass by 75%, that would affect the outcome of the final
recommendations, and he thought all motions should need 75% approval.
Mr. Forbes said the challenge to the committee was that three-quarters of the members needed to be in
agreement on final recommendations, and how the committee got there was important, as Mr. Goldsmith
had said, but Mr. Forbes did not feel 75% was critical on all votes along the way.
VII. BUSINESS FACILITATOR PROPOSAL
Mr. Coyle referred members to the written proposal contained as Item 4 under Summary of Proposed
Policies in Ms. Fiefeld's June 7, 2004, e-mail to committee members. Mr. Coyle said the intent of the
proposal is to put the issue before the Budget Committee and the City Council in terms of resources for
the next fiscal year.
Ms. Pierce said, assuming the business facilitator was a new position, she thought it would take a
considerable resource out of a very tight budget. She said committee members have not talked much
about exactly what they thought the facilitator would do, and she wondered if there was some other way
those things could be accomplished without adding resources. She asked Mr. Coyle how he envisioned
the role, and why it was not getting done now.
Mr. Coyle said he saw two roles and tried to incorporate both in the proposal. One role, he said, is
interdepartmental and interagency coordination. The system is complex and many people touch permits
as the permits go through the system and as regulations get more complex. He said he saw that as an
administrative function and one the staff could do better internally, particularly as Eugene simplifies its
code. The second role has to do with expansion opportunities, he said, for people who currently never get
into the system because they see the hurdles involved as so awful. Mr. Coyle said that is a different level
of advocacy, now sometimes done by the Chamber of Commerce or by staff, but there is no dedicated
resource to do it. He said adding a service to provide facilitator assistance to businesses considering
expansion seemed appropriate.
Ms. Pierce said she believed a few years ago that kind of assistance was part of the function of the Lane
Metro Partnership. Mr. Coyle agreed there was some assistance coming from the Metro Partnership, from
the Chamber, and to a certain degree, from within the City.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 5
Mr. Bowerman asked, rather than hire someone to help people work through a complex system, why not
apply the resource to simplifying the system? He noted that staff, such as Mike Sullivan and Denny
Braud, was already doing process work in this regard, and he wondered what this new person would do
that they don't already do. Mr. Coyle said that was the interagency coordination part of the proposal. He
gave as example that twenty years ago in Eugene it might have been possible for just one staff person to
do a complete review ora building permit to build a single-family home, whereas an application now for
an expansion reveals the level of sophistication and understanding required now to work an application
through its process. Mr. Coyle said the knowledge resource is available in the public sector, except that
the department is striving for 90% cost recovery for permits. This proposal adds a purchased service for
the benefit of the public, he said. Mr. Bowerman asked him to explain.
Mr. Coyle clarified that the City would fund the facilitator position without the burden of cost recovery
from the individual applicant. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Coyle's proposed language says the facilitator is
to assist existing businesses, which presumably means a new business would not qualify for the
assistance. Mr. Coyle said that was correct.
Mr. Proudfoot said in his work he sees how interagency coordination can save citizens a lot of money and
make government deliver service more effectively. He said he thought a facilitator position would serve
that function and would more than pay for itself over time if the person in the position does the job well
and if the market place is listened to. It could lead to regulation streamlining because the person
interacting with others needing the service is in the best position to understand what administrative
changes need to be made. He urged that process facilitation and process review not be separate functions
but be combined in some sense.
Mr. Re'Voal said the organizations that are supposed to be in existence today to help businesses should
step up to the plate to be more effective. He said over the years he had seen different City divisions come
together to work better with each other, but he has not seen that so much from the Metro Partnership,
which receives a significant amount of money to do that. He added that any business afraid of the
bureaucracy to start up a business maybe should not be in business. If there is to be a person to help
businesses, he said, rather than taking funds from the City budget perhaps the advocate should come from
the Lane Metro Partnership.
Mr. Coyle cited an example of an existing business in Eugene wanting to expand and hire more
employees but their perceptions of the difficulty of dealing with the City made them not even want to
attempt the process. Mr. Coyle said he helps such businesses through the process now on a capacity
basis, and the question for the committee is do they want to increase that capacity.
Ms. Rygas said having one person as a facilitator is not nearly as effective is embuing all of the staff in
the department with the capacity to counteract negative perceptions people have. She said she had great
respect for City staff, and so was somewhat confused by the proposal. She said she expected it would be
part of City staff training that each person interacting with an individual would help that individual move
to the next step in the process. Like Ms. Pierce, she said, she still did not understand how adding
someone new addressed the problem better than fixing whatever in the system is too complicated and
training staff to help on the complications that remain.
Mr. Coyle explained that he sees government regulations as a geometric progression, in that every step
added has multiple effects on other parts of the regulatory system. He gave the example of new
stormwater management requirements going into effect that will require a series of judgements and trade-
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 6
offs, such as stormwater discharge versus adequate off-street parking and other competing issues. In
addition, because of cost recovery requirements, he said staff are thinking more like attorneys, in terms of
billable hours, and are reluctant to go "off clock" for additional service, because in doing so they will not
meet 90% cost recovery. He said he thought there was real value to having one person who was not
responsible to stay on billable hours and could focus on coordination.
Mr. Korth said he has seen a lot of positive staff changes in the last few years, and he felt staff were doing
the best they could under the complicated circumstances they were faced with day to day. The fact of the
matter, he said, there was so much going into even a simple permit application, many people would gladly
pay for assistance in going through the process. He said he was in favor of the proposal for a facilitator.
Mr. Wanichek said he also supported the proposal, although in general he was not in favor of adding
government to solve problems, especially economic problems. He said he was bringing another
perspective, from being on the City Budget Committee for six years, two years as chair. The City has a
$95 million budget, he said, and spends $200,000 a year on economic development. That was not much.
He said he thought the City should pay for the new position. He noted that Mr. Korth had said developers
would be willing to pay for the position, and he would argue that they already do, through their property
taxes. He also added that he had been on the Lane Metro Partnership for about six years, and he felt the
Partnership could deal well with interagency questions, but not interdepartmental issues within the City.
He said the new position would cost about $125,000, which would mean a matching cut somewhere else,
but he felt out of a $95 million budget it could be reprioritized.
Ms. Edwards said her comments would parallel Mr. Wanichek's. She said the Metro Partnership would
like to be a one-stop shopping point for businesses coming into the region. She did not think the current
funding ratio would allow the Partnership to take the facilitator role on, but that could be explored. She
wondered if other cities had similar positions.
Mr. Coyle said Texas, where he came from, was the other end of the spectrum: the processes were
simple, and there was no cost recovery expectation.
Mr. Bowerman said he was in favor of the position, and proposed a role modification. He said the permit
requirements had become very complex because of Federal and State regulations over the top of City
regulations, and the City was the recipient of any ill will coming from trying to interpret and implement
the many requirements. He said his modification would be to add "and to assist in methods and policies
to streamline permitting processes." He suggested 50% of the position be devoted to helping people
through the permit system and 50% devoted to system streamlining. He said he thought the person in the
position would be ideally situated to do both roles.
Mr. Kahle said he wanted to take the committee back to the genesis of the proposal. He said several
former mayors and former Eugene Planning and Development manager Lew Bowers had talked about
the City's former BATeam (Business Assistance Team), and he asked how well did this proposal replicate
what was lost when the BATeam was disbanded. He also wanted to know if individual employees were
held to the 90% recovery rate. If so, he said, that may be what creates the impression the committee is
talking about, because the recovery rate requirement would be a disincentive for employees to spend extra
time with permit applicants.
Mr. Coyle clarified that the permit staff and management have to average out to 90% cost recovery, not
each employee.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 7
Mr. Sullivan explained to the committee how the BATeam had functioned, and that they were financed
from outside the General Fund. He said this proposal represented about a third of the original BATeam
resource.
Mr. Rexius asked who the facilitator would report to, and how would he, as a developer, know that
person, a City employee, is working on his behalf?. Mr. Coyle answered the person would probably
report to a mid-level manager in the Planning and Development Department. Addressing the second
question, Mr. Coyle said about 10-15% of his week is devoted to the kind of permit problem solving that
this person would be doing. He said the proposal would add a full-time resource to do that. Feedback
from permitees would measure the quality and value of the person's work, he said.
Ms. Rygas said she wanted to go back to principles, that it was not accurate to equate economic
development and the community good with business growth if business growth does not contribute in
terms of using land wisely, raising median wage, or in other ways. She said she thought economic tools
such as this facilitator position should be linked to community goals and standards, so that the assistance
is given to businesses that, for example, choose to locate in less desirable areas for in-fill, or grow jobs
that have health benefits. She said she thought if the committee neglected to do that, it becomes a
business facilitation committee rather than an economic development facilitation committee.
Ms. Pierce moved, seconded by Ms. Edwards, that the City Council and
Budget Committee should fund a facilitator to assist existing businesses
with expansion, coordinate multi-agency review of development permits,
and assist in developing methods and policies to help streamline the
permitting process.
Ms. Teninty asked if the expectation was that new businesses would go to the Metro Partnership for
assistance. Mr. Coyle explained that with a limited resource of one person, the logic was for limiting the
assistance to existing businesses wanting to expand.
Mr. Proudfoot said it seemed this proposal was one of the key leverage points on expanding the tax base
to provide more needed services. He said he thought if we enhance the local economy we will increase
our resource base, and at some point will reach a balance. He said if Mr. Coyle was saying there are
already competing concerns for this resource, then perhaps the committee should recommend more
resource so we can actually meet the need. Mr. Coyle said one of the functions of the facilitator in the
first year would be to find out how much resource is needed.
Mr. Re'Voal said he received BATeam assistance in his first year after buying an existing business, and if
this individual would be like what the BAT was, it would be a very good thing. Referring to Ms. Rygas'
earlier comments, he said he comes from a community that is always left out when discussions of
community good occur. He agreed that not all businesses are the kind you want to have, but he said he
could not agree to a definition of community good, because there were too many communities out there.
Mr. Korth said if there were a potential cost recovery for the position, maybe the committee should not
limit it to expanding businesses, because new businesses would definitely pay for the service, because
they are usually more complicated. Also, he said, not all businesses expand for themselves. He said his
business develops for others, by building and leasing to other businesses. He said he would also like to
incorporate into the recommendation to the City Council that the position be evaluated yearly to see
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 8
whether it is paying for itself or meeting the current demand. Ideally, he said, the function would grow
into what was available with the BATeam.
Mr. Wanichek, seconded by Mr. Rexius, moved to amend the motion on
the floor to strike "existing" from the phrase "existing businesses."
Mr. Wanichek noted that new businesses with new buildings increase the property tax exception value,
whereas existing businesses can only improve the property tax base by 3%.
Ms. Edwards noted that the motion expands one person's job, with the committee knowing the position
was already inadequate for the demand, and she said this should not eliminate the discretion of
prioritizing the position as it unfolds, but she did support the amendment.
Mr. Bowerman said he supported the main motion, and based his support for limiting the position to
existing businesses because these are the people who are already paying taxes and have already made an
investment in the community, with the likelihood they will continue to be here. He said he will vote
against the amendment.
Ms. Rygas asked Mr. Coyle if the amended motion were adopted, could his department still make
reasonable priority decisions for the position. Mr. Coyle answered that based on this discussion, he
would see the predominant function as assistance to all businesses, with tie decisions going to existing
businesses.
Ms. Smith called for a vote on the amended motion to strike "existing" from the phrase "existing
businesses."
The motion passed 12:2.
Mr. Bowerman moved, seconded by Mr. Proudfoot, to amend the motion
as amended by inserting "(50%)" after the phrase "to coordinate multi-
agency review," and by inserting "(50%)" after the phrase "streamline
the development process."
Committee members discussed whether a 50-50 split was realistic or desirable.
After committee discussion, Mr. Proudfoot withdrew his second. The
motion to amend died for lack of a second.
Ms. Smith asked Ms. Pierce to repeat the main motion, as amended, and called for a vote.
The motion passed 13:1.
The committee took a break from 2:50 to 2:55.
VIII. ENTERPRISE ZONE REPORT
Mr. Forbes chaired the item. Mr. Rexius gave the subcommittee report. He said the five subcommittee
members agreed an enterprise zone is worthwhile. He said some consideration is being given to altering
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 9
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
clarify that the term "mean" was used by mistake in the subcommittee report, and that the median, the
middle number, was the standard to determine measures of wage, because it did not skew high. She said
wages are easier to quantify than benefits, which would require more research, and she thought the
subcommittee's modular approach to criteria acknowledged that. In addition, she said she thought each
criterion would need more specificity before finally adopted.
Mr. Proudfoot asked staff if the City could incent the behavior described in the potential criteria
programmatically, rather than through an enterprise zone. Mr. Sullivan said if the City had a business
financing program there might be a way to do it, but the City typically does not have that kind of
relationship with businesses. He said the business loans program is small and would not have an omnibus
effect.
Mr. Korth asked Mr. Sullivan about urban renewal as a way to cluster desirable development. Mr.
Sullivan answered that urban renewal in Eugene is more focused on commercial redevelopment
downtown, and that consultants have told the City that industrial urban renewal, though possible and done
in other places, is not necessarily a good long-term business plan. Mr. Proudfoot summarized what he
was hearing was that urban renewal is the tool for downtown businesses and enterprise zone is more for
the industrial base. Mr. Sullivan said generally that was correct.
Ms. Edwards moved, seconded by Mr. Korth, to adopt the
recommendation of the Enterprise Zone Subcommittee, with two
modifications:
1) strike the second bullet point on page 1 of the report that modifies the
geographic boundaries of the enterprise zone;
2) add the following language to criteria a (addition in bold):
"Local company---on property or payroll tax rolls for past three years"
In response to a question, Ms. Edwards clarified that the intent of her modification would be to renew the
previous enterprise zone boundaries.
Ms. Rygas said the first part of the motion undercuts the spirit of the subcommittee's compromise that an
enterprise zone has value to help businesses, but there needs to be a way to direct businesses. She said the
subcommittee did not intend that greenfields not be talked about, but saw it as an opportunity to attach a
different set of criteria to the greenfields than to the brownfields so that there could be some directive to
brownfields.
Mr. Wanichek suggested additional criteria that developing a brownfield could be one of the incentives to
get an 11.1% tax exemption. He said he also thought brownfields outside of the boundary should be
included, such as the railroad property.
Mr. Bowerman said the enterprise zone has had a rocky history in this community, and some of the
subcommittee saw excluding greenfields as a way to see an enterprise zone emerge successfully with the
existing and future City Councils. He said nothing in the proposal would prevent greenfields from being
developed. He said he thought subcommittee members were trying to find a way that improves the
opportunity for redevelopment and getting more buy-in with a broader population segment. He said he
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 11
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
The motion passed 7:6.
Noting that the motion passed by a bare majority, Mr. Forbes said the enterprise zone recommendation
would be a critical piece of the committee's report to the City Council. He asked for committee reaction.
Ms. Edwards said she saw more conciliatory possibilities to get to three-quarters support. She said she
did not know how to proceed, but thought the committee needed to look somewhere in between where it
had just arrived by vote.
Ms. Rygas moved, seconded by Mr. Re'Voal, to adopt the report as
written by the Enterprize Zone subcommittee, with the following
amendments (deletions in italics, additions in bold):
1) Potential Criterion a: Local company--on property or payroll
tax rolls for past three years
2) Potential Criteria g and h: replace mean with median
and with the understanding that all of the potential criteria reflected
principles to be followed, not specific details.
Mr. Rexius asked if a better description of the "smaller, chopped up tracts" in the boundary description
was available and was told those were the tracts on Prairie Road. He asked for confirmation that the
proposed zone does not include the infrastructure-ready business parks on West 11th, and received
confirmation that it does not. Last, he said railroad and mill sites needed to be included. Mr. Kahle said
some of the railroad properties were greenfields and some were brownfields; he would include
brownfields. Mr. Proudfoot said he believed the EPA defined brownfields as anything that is perceived as
brownfields. He agreed brownfields inside or outside the boundary should be included. He said his
concern with excluding business parks was that it could lead to pushing the urban growth boundary. He
said he would rather promote sites where the infrastructure is already present.
Ms. Pierce said she thought it would be difficult for committee members to vote on the motion without a
clear designation of boundaries. She said she would like to see a map developed before the next meeting
that outlines exactly the small additional tracts and the brownfields to be included. She said the City
Council will have to have such a map to adopt the proposal.
Mr. Wanichek said he would not support the motion. He said Eugene has shovel-ready sites that the State
and the Governor have said are shovel-ready sites, and development can still occur without a property tax
exemption, but we are here to be an economic development committee that helps bring businesses in, and
when we talk about the community we are making a significant value statement with the extra 33.3%
criteria about Eugene's uniqueness, and that statement is enough. He said we should have the same
enterprise zone we had before.
Ms. Rygas used an analogy of a former meth house, a house needing renovation, and a new house to
make the point that different reward systems are needed to encourage people to move into all three of
them. She said Eugene also had three different kinds of properties that needed to be developed, that the
heart of the proposal was substantially different incentives for the three kinds, and noted that greenfields
often are developed with no incentive at all.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 13
Mr. Bowerman, responding to Ms. Pierce, said he thought the boundary was defined conceptually in the
motion, and the committee needed to pass a motion to arrive at a precise map. He said he did not
understand Mr. Proudfoot's comment on urban growth boundary pressure, and continued that the
Enterprise Subcommittee had been looking for a proposal that could get completely through an adoption
process, in addition to this committee.
Mr. Forbes wondered if there was a compromise of giving brownfields extra points but still allowing
shovel-ready sites to be included. He said 30 years ago those sites were identified as the area where we
would do our economic development.
Ms. Edwards said she liked Ms. Rygas' analogy of houses, but said she believed our competition was not
about which house in the neighborhood to buy, but whether to buy a house in Eugene or in Spokane,
Washington.
Mr. Re'Voal said he understood what Mr. Proudfoot was saying about the urban growth boundary and
that he did not know that it made sense to get rid of investment that had already occurred. He said he was
equally concerned that the proposal with infrastructure-ready sites included would not get through the
approval process. Like Ms. Pierce, he said he would like to see a map.
Mr. Forbes asked committee members if they were ready to vote on the motion or wanted to delay. Ms.
Pierce suggested a vote to see what happens with the motion.
Mr. Wanichek asked ifa map could be developed showing the area included in the motion, a map with
additional brownfields, and a map with shovel-ready sites. Mr. Proudfoot pointed out that there was no
debate on brownfields, because they would be included; the debate was on greenfields west of Beltline.
Members discussed this point.
Mr. Forbes asked the group to vote on the motion, and prepare for the next meeting based on the results of
the vote.
Ms. Rygas restated the motion. The motion was passed 9:3:1.
IX. NEXT STEPS
Mr. Forbes summarized that the committee has discussed guiding principles and business facilitation, has
agreement on infrastructure, and some agreement on buildable land survey and the enterprise zone. He
asked consultants and staff to summarize committee agreements for the next meeting. Mr. Moore said he
would try to draft a report with agreements and send it electronically to committee members before the
next meeting.
The next MCED meeting was set for June 28, 2-5 p.m, to review the final report. Mr. Goldsmith and Mr.
Proudfoot are unable to make the meeting and will e-mail their comments.
A meeting to vote on the final report was set for July 9, 9-11 a.m.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
(Recorded by Marjorie Beck)
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 14, 2004 Page 14
AGENDA
MEETING 7: REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004
2:00 - 5:00 P.M.
ATRIUM BUILDING
SLOAT CONFERENCE ROOM
99 W. 10TH AVENUE
WELCOME JIM FORBES, COMMITTEE CHAIR
APPROVE MINUTES FROM MEETING #5 ALL
REVIEW FINAL REPORT JIM FORBES
Discussion All
COMMITTEE'S NEXT STEPS ALL
MINUTES
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Sloat Conference Room - Atrium Building
June 28, 2004
9 a.m.
PRESENT:
Committee: Jim Forbes, outgoing chair; Kathy Smith, incoming chair; Tom Bowerman,
Marcia Edwards, Don Kahle, Steve Korth, Gretchen Pierce, Marvin Re'Voal,
Rusty Rexius, Jana Rygas, Ellen Teninty, Craig Wanicheck, members;
Staff: Anne Fifield, ECONorthwest; Tom Coyle, Denny Braud, Ann Munroe, Mike
Sullivan, Planning and Development Department.
Guests: Kitty Piercy, Mayor Elect; Chris Nystrom, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce.
ABSENT: Bill Goldsmith, Kartar Khalsa, Michael Phinney, Joshua Proudfoot, members.
1. Welcome
Mr. Forbes called the meeting of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development to order.
Mr. Forbes said that this would be the last meeting he would attend before his move to Austin,
Texas. He said that he was very impressed with the work of the committee and that he had
enjoyed working with everyone. Ms. Smith presented Mr. Forbes with a gi~t of appreciation for
his work.
2. Approve Minutes of the May 24, 2004, Meeting
Mr. Forbes asked for a review of the minutes of the May 24, 2004, Mayor's Committee on
Economic Development (MCED).
Ms. Pierce, seconded by Mr. Wanichek, moved to approve the
minutes of the May 24, 2004, MCED meeting. The motion passed
unanimously, 12:0.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 1
3. Review Final Report
Ms. Fifield agreed with the suggestion that the committee do a page-by-page review of the draft
final report. In response to a question from Ms. Pierce about how to deal with a new chapter on
an Enterprise Zone, Mr. Forbes suggested that the committee discuss that issue first.
In response to a process question from Mr. Rexius, Mr. Forbes noted that any motion or decision
could be passed with a 75 percent majority of the members present.
Denny Braud, Planning & Development Department staff, joined the members for the discussion
of an Enterprise Zone. He gave a brief summary of the memorandum provided to the members
on a technical analysis of an Enterprise Zone. He said that the committee had said that it was
interested in recommending an Enterprise Zone with certain added conditions. Businesses
eligible for an Enterprise Zone tax exemption provided under the Oregon Enterprise Zone
statutes would be required to make an annual public benefit contribution to the zone sponsor
equal to 33 percent of the tax exemption. Reductions in the amount of the public benefit
contribution could be achieved through various conditions. Mr. Braud said he consulted with the
City Attorney and received the following reply.' ... the condition requiring an annualpublic
benefit contribution... (up to 33 percent of the tax exemption).., is legally defensible if the City
is limited to using the recaptured funds only for uses that are reasonably related to providing job
opportunities. To be more easily defensible, the proposed standards should also be shown,
perhaps through findings, to reasonably relate to creating jobs. In addition, the standards
should be reconsidered and, if necessary, redrafied to address or eliminate the concerns
described above. The City Attorney continued to point out that most of the committee's
proposed standards, i.e. the ways in which the contribution may be reduced, appear to be
difficult to measure or to demonstrate compliance.
Mr. Rexius asked if the whole Enterprise Zone proposal would be denied by the State because of
one indefensible criterion or if there would be an opportunity to delete or change the criteria.
Mr. Braud said that the state would not deny the zone application based on local criteria, and he
thought there would be a chance to change the criteria.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Braud to explain the State's position on allowing agencies to have
some flexibility in developing an Enterprise Zone. Mr. Braud said that the State rules said that a
sponsor could not reduce the financial benefit to a company by more than one third. He said that
the State did not want a program created that appeared to provide a tax incentive and then
allowed more than one third of that incentive to be taken away.
Mr. Korth asked if the committee was in agreement that the following additional conditions
listed on page 7 of the memorandum were the ones with which the committee was comfortable:
a. Attractive wages
b. Employee benefits
c. Job training and advancement opportunities
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 2
d. Job retention
e. Utilization of job programs that assist disadvantaged workers
Ms. Rygas said that she understood from Mr. Braud's report that the committee was attempting
to put two community related sets of criteria into an Enterprise Zone. One set dealt with job
quality, job retention, etc. and the other set dealt with environmental concerns and were not
included in the above list. She said that she also understood from Mr. Braud that the set of
environmental criteria were more difficult to include in an Enterprise Zone because of the State's
guidelines. Ms. Rygas continued by saying that she thought that the Enterprise Zone Committee
had compromised by restricting the Enterprise Zone boundaries to areas that to some extent did
not include greenfields, but did include underutilized parcels, thereby having some
environmental influence in the direction of the Enterprise Zone.
Mr. Forbes suggested that the committee review the staff recommendations on pages 6, 7, and 8
of the memorandum.
Mr. Wanichek, seconded by Mr. Rexius, moved to create a new
Enterprise Zone.
Mr. Bowerman said that he would like to see the entire proposal for an Enterprise Zone before
voting on the concept.
Ms. Pierce said that the question was whether members were in agreement that an Enterprise
Zone was a good economic tool to recommend to the City Council or if members were only in
agreement that it was a good tool only if it met certain boundaries and criteria. She said that the
discussions about criteria and boundaries ended up reflecting each member's own personal view
about economic development. She said that she was hopeful that the committee could agree that
an Enterprise Zone was a good and useful economic development tool and would simply allow
the City Council to decide the boundaries and criteria. She said that the committee could put
forth suggestions or examples of boundaries and criteria, but that it was ultimately the attitude of
the council that would be reflected in the Enterprise Zone. She said that she would rather give
support to the idea of an Enterprise Zone rather than defining it too tightly.
Mr. Kahle agreed with Ms. Pierce. He noted that the undercurrent of many of the discussions of
the committee was the tension between keeping Eugene unique while creating economic tools
that worked.
In response to a question from Ms. Teninty, Mr. Wanichek said that his purpose in making the
motion was to simply make a statement that the committee was in support of creating a new
Enterprise Zone. He said that he assumed that conditions and amendments would unfold during
the discussion. Mr. Wanichek added that he thought that the one third/two thirds would be a
good compromise, perhaps giving brownfields a full exemption. Mr. Forbes agreed with that
compromise.
MiNUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 3
Mr. Rexius said that after rethinking the Enterprise Zone in terms of job creation, he was
uncomfortable with the recommendation to exclude greenfields because he said that greenfield
development would probably create the most jobs with the highest pay. He said that perhaps
there could be some restrictions on greenfield development, but that it should not be eliminated.
Mr. Korth said that he thought that the committee was "spinning its' wheels" a little on the
criteria because the City could not apply for an Enterprise Zone for a couple of years and
decisions would be made at the council level. He said that the committee did not have the time
to craft something that was perfect particularly for a proposal that was a couple of years out and
would be decided by other people. He added that he thought that it would be best to recommend
a direction to the City Council.
Ms. Teninty suggested that the section, titled Context for Recommendations, in the final report
include a statement that the committee recommended that all economic development tools would
work to address the following concerns described in that section: family wages, sustainability,
and business climate. She said that this would allow her to vote for an Enterprise Zone without
being really specific.
Ms. Rygas agreed adding that she could say "yes" to the concept on an Enterprise Zone without
all the details in place as long as there was a certainty that public dollar debate would go toward
raising median wage and toward responsible environmental practices. She reminded members
that early in the committee process, several speakers had said that a tax program was just a part
of what would bring businesses to Eugene.
Mr. Forbes asked for a vote on the motion.
The motion passed, 9:3, with Ms. Teninty, Mr. Rygas, and Mr.
Bowerman in opposition.
Ms. Smith suggested embellishing the motion to approve an Enterprise Zone by adding an
incentive for brownfield development at 100 percent and an incentive for Greenfield
development at 66 percent and including criteria about wages and benefits. She said that this
would address some of the sustainability issues, would put the emphasis on wages, would not
define criteria specifically, and would move the idea of an Enterprise Zone forward.
Mr. Forbes suggested having a general discussion about boundaries. Ms. Rygas pointed out that
there were three types of areas: true brownfields, places that were infrastructure ready but were
not quite classified as greenfields, and the true greenfields.
Mr. Forbes asked for any questions or comments about the staff recommendations about
boundaries.
Mr. Wanichek said that he supported Ms. Smith's suggestion.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 4
In response to a question from Ms. Rygas, Mr. Braud said that the staff would need more time to
analyze each site. He said that the only large greenfield site was Awbry Meadows. He estimated
that 75 percent of the sites were already developed or underdeveloped. He repeated that the only
major greenfield sites, either served or unserved, were the Awbry Meadows property, the Willow
Creek area, and the Greenhill Technology Park and that the rest of the sites were either
developed or would be considered brownfield/infill property.
In response to a question from Ms. Rygas about using Beltline Road as the boundary, Mr. Braud
said that the Beltline Road boundary was just not well thought out at this point.
Mr. Kahle said that it would be wonderful if the committee could send the message that it
approved creating an Enterprise Zone by 75 percent, and then with added conditions it approved
the idea 100 percent.
Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kahle, moved to recommend that
businesses that develop on brownfield sites receive 100 percent of
the incentive and that businesses that develop on greenfield sites
receive 66.6 percent of the incentive with the opportunity to earn
more related to the following items listed in the memorandum:
attractive wages, employee benefits, job training and advancement
opportunities, and job retention; and that boundary option A or B,
as described in the memorandum, be adopted.
Mr. Korth made a friendly amendment to adopt boundary option B
as recommended by staff. Ms. Smith and Mr. Kahle accepted the
amendment.
Mr. Wanichek said that he thought this was a good compromise. He added that he knew that a
tax incentive did make a difference in businesses decisions about where to locate. He said that
the compromise on the greenfield sites would make a difference and would attract companies
that would want to locate in Eugene because it was a little different and was concerned about the
quality of life.
Ms. Teninty asked if the subcommittee would define "attractive wages." Mr. Forbes said that
would be the responsibility of the City Council.
Ms. Rygas said that she liked the spirit of the compromise but expressed concern that the motion
did not ask for enough. She recommended amending the motion to include some minimum level
of job criteria for brownfield development and a ladder for greenfield development. She said
that while she agreed that the recommendation to the council should not be too detailed, she
wanted to create incentives that would raise the median wage in Eugene.
Ms. Pierce said that she did not think that even a 100 percent three-year tax exemption for
development on a brownfield would cover the cost of the clean-up of the site and that therefore,
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 5
any further conditions on a brownfield would discourage developers. She added that since
redevelopment cost more than new development, a 66 percent three-year tax exemption would
also probably not cover those costs.
Ms. Pierce expressed another concern. She said that she did not think that providing family-
wage jobs would solve the unemployment and low-income problem in Eugene. She said that
many people who were unemployed or low-income did not have the skills to qualify for family-
wage jobs and that perhaps creating more family-wage jobs would lead to a growth issue rather
than solving the problem of low-income in the area.
Ms. Edwards said that she was a little more optimistic about businesses taking advantage of
brownfields because of the statistic that 86 percent of the businesses who took advantage of the
Enterprise Zone were already local businesses. She agreed with Ms. Pierce that the incentive
needed to be there for brownfield development. She added that she did not think that an
Enterprise Zone would be creating jobs or increasing wages. She did not think that it was that
powerful in driving business.
Mr. Bowerman said that he thought that the incentive was meant to be a "balancing act" between
the cost of redevelopment of brownfields and that it would only influence a decision in a small
way. He said that he thought that there were a lot of brownfield properties that did not have
contamination and were merely underdeveloped.
Mr. Forbes called for a vote on the motion.
The motion passed 11:0, with Ms. Rygas abstaining.
Ms. Fifield gave a brief overview of the draft final report. Mr. Forbes asked members for any
questions or comments on the report.
Mr. Korth said that he thought the report was very clear and easy to understand and had captured
the committee's discussion as background. Ms. Pierce said that she agreed with the exception of
a few sections which she would discuss during the review.
Mr. Kahle said that he was struck by how out-of-proportion some of the content was in that a lot
of detail of the committee's discussions was given in some sections with very little given in
others. He said that he thought that the report was well written and provided good context for
the recommendations, but added that some of the context was more than the committee received,
such as information about the Zucker Report. He suggested using different type styles to help
people navigate through the report. Those suggestions were:
· Use italics for background information that held the report together
· Use bold type for recommendations
· Use regular type for the rest
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 6
Mr. Coyle informed the committee that all of the minutes from their meetings would accompany
the report to the City Council.
Ms. Pierce said that after reading through the whole report, she had the sense that the report in
general sounded a little bit defensive. She said that some themes were repeated throughout the
report and those were the diversity of the group, the difficulty of addressing certain issues, and
for what the report was intended or not intended. Ms. Smith suggested that perhaps one way to
address this would be to put the recommendations at the front of the report and then provide the
background.
Mr. Kahle said that he thought that it would also be helpful to include some of the dead ends that
the committee reached.
Mr. Bowerman said that he would appreciate the draft report being sent to him in a format that
he could manipulate in order to facilitate his making notes in the text.
Mr. Bowerman made a comment on Ms. Pierce's statement that the report seemed defensive. He
said that it was his opinion that the community was very polarized on the issue of economic
development and that the committee did not represent that polarization. He said that the
committee was marginally in the pro-business development end of the spectrum. He said that if
there had been an objective to making recommendations that would be broadly embraced by the
broader segment, there would be fewer tendencies for the report to have a ring of defensiveness.
He said that an overall observation was that he did not think that the committee was comprised
of a representative group of people. He said that would affect the type of product that would
come out of the committee and would affect the durability of the product.
Mr. Re'Voal asked Mr. Bowerman to expand on his comments. Mr. Bowerman said that the
community was not represented on the committee in the same kind of proportional characteristic
as the people that really cared a lot about the future of the community. He said that as a
consequence the committee would produce a document that would be slanted in favor of a
certain perspective that was not representative of that broader sector within the community. Mr.
Re'Voal pushed Mr. Bowerman to be more explicit about who was not represented. Mr.
Bowerman said that he thought that there were a lot of people in the community who cared about
the issues of sustainability and that while those issues were given a lot of"lip service" during
committee deliberations, it had been difficult to actually make recommendations regarding them.
He concluded by saying that advisory committees were not appointed to represent different
constituencies.
Mr. Forbes led members on a page-by-page review of the final report. Members offered
suggestions for revisions and additions to the report, which were recorded by Ms. Fifield.
Page 1
Members agreed to include the exact charge to the committee in the summary.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 7
Mr. Khale asked that next to the last paragraph on page 1 be rewritten to acknowledge that there
were perceptions and there were practices that influence each other and that the committee dealt
with both. He said that the paragraph only told half of the story and that while being perceived
as a "no-growth" city was deadly for economic development, being perceived as a "go-growth"
city would be deadly for other endeavors.
Members agreed to change the word "policies" in the last sentence of the second paragraph to
"recommendations." It was agreed to make this change where applicable throughout the
document.
Page 2
Mr. Kahle suggested adding that the committee was looking for things that would have broad
public support. Members agreed.
Page 3
Mr. Kahle suggested that the specific charge to the committee be added to the second paragraph.
Ms. Pierce said that she did not think it was appropriate to have Mr. Khalsa vote on the report
when he had not been privy to any of the discussions that led to the final document. Mr.
Re'Voal said that he would call and talk with Mr. Khalsa.
Page 4
Members discussed the feasibility of including background reports with the final report. Mr.
Coyle said that the staff could comprise a list of materials and reports and identify where they
could be found. The staff was concerned about the amount of material and did not want to
"overkill" the council with information.
It was agreed to list the subcommittees that were formed and to add that the subcommittees met
and reported back to the larger committee.
Ms. Rygas suggested that the description of the March 8 committee meeting include the
information that ECONorthwest presented in its visual aids which defined economic
development broadly and then narrowed the focus to tools that affect businesses. Members
discussed this with some disagreement as to whether to include it. Some members thought that
the committee did discuss the broader welfare issues of economic development and did not want
to over-characterize the charge from ECONorthwest. Ms. Rygas said that the narrowing of the
focus did impact the discussions the committee had. Mr. Kahle said that it would also explain
some of the committee votes. Members agreed to put this suggestion in the "parking lot" and
return to it at a later time.
Page 5
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 8
No changes
Page 6
No changes
Page 7
After a brief discussion members agreed to add the concept that while the committee attempted
to narrow the ideas for economic development it discussed, it was still able to address only a few
of numerous possibilities because of time limititations.
Page 8
Mr. Korth said that he was not comfortable using the term "family-wage" and did not know what
it meant. Members agreed and decided to address it when discussing page 9.
Mr. Kahle suggested added the phrase "and more time than the general public" after "City
Councilors" in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
Page 9
Ms. Teninty said that she liked this section of the report and thought that it provided a general
guiding statement for the City Council. She suggested adding a fourth issue which the
committee discussed and thought was important. The fourth bullet point would be Local
Revenue Impacts.
After discussion, members agree to delete the following phrase from the first sentence under the
first bullet point, Family Wages: and that higher wages for low-income workers merit more
policy attention than higher wages for high-income workers.
Members asked the staff to rework the following phrase in the third sentence of the paragraph
under Family Wages: that increasing wages for lower-income workers should be an important
goal... After discussion about what terms to use for "increasing wages" or "family-wage jobs,"
Ms. Teninty suggested using the following list of conditions under number 3 on page 7 of Mr.
Braud's memorandum:
a. Attractive wages
b. Employee benefits
c. Job training and advancement opportunities
d. Job retention
Members agreed.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 9
Page 10
Mr. Rexius said that the next-to-the-last sentence in the paragraph about sustainability (which
began on page 9 and continued to page 10) was not clear.
Mr. Kahle suggested changing the first two words of the last bullet from Business climate to
Perceptions Matter. Members agreed.
Page 11
Members agreed to delete most of the paragraph under The Issue and to rewrite the last two
sentences as follows: The Committee discussed the importance of Urban Renewal as an active
redevelopment strategy. The Committee also generally discussed the potential uses of Urban
Renewal to encourage redevelopment in other areas of the community.
Members agreed to substitute the following sentences from Mr. Kahle for the Recommendation:
Urban Renewal Districts are a powerful tool for economic development. A subcommittee was
formed to explore how this tool has been and could be used in Eugene, looking at boundaries,
governance models, and reinvestment strategies. Although the subcommittee produced no
recommendations, the members agreed that these issues warrant further study.
Page 12
Members agreed to delete the second sentence under Solutions.
Mr. Kahle suggested the following change to the last sentence of the third paragraph under The
Problem (italicized words added, stricken words deleted): The Committee agreed that there is a
....... ~°~:~ lack of agreement of the true supply of commercial and industrial land in the
City of Eugene. Members agreed.
After discussion members agreed to add under the Recommendation that the analysis should
also earn broad-based support as well as meeting state requirements, and that it could include
such things as potential for parcel assembly, vacant, and underutilized land.
Page 13
Mr. Bowerman suggested changing the second sentence in the fourth paragraph under Solutions
to the following (italicized words added): It is beyond the scope and available time of this
Committee to make recommendations to modify the code... Members agreed.
Ms. Rygas suggested and received support for changing the first sentence in the third paragraph
to the following (italicized words added): The Committee agreed that many perceive the City's
regulations...
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 10
Page 14
Members agreed to change the word "deferential" to "responsive" in the first sentence after the
bullet Strategic.
Page 15
Mr. Bowerman suggested adding the following sentence to the fourth paragraph: It is
encouraged that the ombudsman j ob description provide a percentage of time devoted to code
revision or any other system change recommendations.
Mr. Kahle suggested and received support for changing the first sentence under The Problem to
read (italicized word added, stricken word deleted): The City of Eugene has v, ofew financial...
Page 16
Members agreed to strike the third and fourth paragraphs under Solutions.
Mr. Rexius noted that in the second paragraph under Solutions, the Oregon Enterprise Zone
program offered a three to five year property tax exemption rather than a three year exemption.
Page 17
Ms. Pierce suggested rewording the last sentence under Concluding Comments so that it did not
contain the phrase "something like consensus."
Ms. Teninty suggested and received support to remove the last sentence in the fourth paragraph
under Concluding Comments.
After considerable discussion about whether to include a list of issues that the committee thought
were important but were not able to address, the committee agreed that the final report should
first list the committee's recommendations followed by the guiding principals the committee
used in considering options or tools for economic development.
4. Committee's Next Steps
The next committee meeting was scheduled for July 9. Mr. Forbes thanked the committee for its
hard work and said that he had enjoyed the camaraderie of the group.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45pm.
(Recorded by Elise Self)
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development June 28, 2004 Page 11
AGENDA
MEETING 8: APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS
FRIDAY, JULY 9, 2004
9:00 - 11:00 A.M.
ATRIUM BUILDING
SLOAT CONFERENCE ROOM
99 W. 10TH AVENUE
WELCOME KATHY SMITH, COMMITTEE CHAIR
VOTING PROCEDURES KATHY SMITH
FINAL REPORT -- DISCUSS AND EDIT ALL
VOTE ON FINAL REPORT ALL
PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL - WHEN, WHO, AND HOW ALL
MINUTES
Mayor's Committee on Economic Development
Bascom Room--Eugene Public Library
July 9, 2004
9 a.m.
PRESENT:
Committee: Kathy Smith, Chair; Tom Bowerman, Marcia Edwards, Don Kahle, Steve Korth,
Gretchen Pierce, Joshua Proudfoot, Rusty Rexius, Jana Rygas, Ellen Teninty,
Craig Wanicheck, members;
Staff: Terry Moore, Anne Fifield, ECONorthwest; Kurt Yeiter, Ann Munroe, Planning
and Development Department.
ABSENT: Bill Goldsmith, Kartar Khalsa, Michael Phinney, Marvin Re'Voal, members.
1. Welcome
Ms. Smith called the last scheduled meeting of the Mayor's Committee on Economic
Development to order.
Ms. Pierce distributed copies of a document entitled Oregon. We Love Dreamers, which was a
comparison of first-year operating ownership costs for hypothetical businesses in Oregon,
Illinois, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Ohio, and an article from The Oregonian regarding the
State's certified industrial sites.
2. Voting Procedures
Members discussed the voting procedure to be used for the final report and who would be
eligible to vote on the report, noting the 75 percent majority requirement imposed on its final
recommendation by the City Council. After discussion, members agreed that former chair Jim
Forbes and Mr. Re'Voal would be eligible to vote on the final report. Mr. Goldsmith had asked
to abstain from the final vote. Mr. Phinney and Mr. Khalsa would not be eligible to vote as they
had not participated in the last few committee meetings. The committee would vote on the final
report following review of the final document if time allowed. Ms. Smith summarized that there
would now be 14 members voting on the final report.
Mr. Bowerman encouraged staff to make the procedural steps for such committee processes clear
at the beginning.
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 9, 2004 Page 1
3. Final Report--Discuss and Edit
Ms. Smith led members on a page-by-page review of the final report. Members offered
suggestions for revisions and additions to the report, which were recorded by Mr. Moore and Ms.
Fifield. The committee agreed to include a summary of the enterprise zone subcommittee
process as an addendum to the report.
4. Vote on Final Report
Members agreed that, due to a lack of time, staff would disseminate the final report in its original
and revised forms via e-mail and create an electronic voting procedure for the vote on the final
report. Ms. Rygas asked that staff clarify who votes, and to give members three days to identify
errors and omissions in the document. Mr. Moore noted that the final report must be done by
July 31 to be forwarded to the council in time for its scheduled discussion.
5. Presentation to City Council--When, Who, and How
Mr. Moore reported the final report would be discussed by the council on August 9. Planning
and Development Director Tom Coyle would provide an introduction to the report, and Ms.
Smith would review the committee's recommendations.
The meeting adjoumed at noon.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development July 9, 2004 Page 2
ATTACHMENT D
Background Materials Reviewed by the Committee
· Final Report - Council Committee on Economic Development (CCED) - presented to Eugene City
Council on December 5, 1994
· Sustainable Development Handout - information from the Institute for Sustainable Communities website
· Economic Development Strategic Plan - Developed by the Council Committee on Economic
Diversification in May 1988.
· Economic Strategy Team PowerPoint Presentation by Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce - this
information was an outline of a 13 page report called Economic Development Strategy to Create a Strong
Local Economy produced by the Economic Strategy Team of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce in
December 2002.
· Oregon Values & Beliefs 2002 - a statewide report sponsored by 1) Oregon Business Council, 2) Oregon
Education Association, 3) Oregon School Boards Association, and 4) SEIU Local 503, OPEU.
· Discussion Paper - Potential Economic Strategy Tools and Actions Based on Sustainability - this is a
culmination of ideas and input from numerous interested parties, including various City departments, the
Institute for Sustainable Economics and Ethics, Lane Community College, University of Oregon, and the
Chamber of Commerce, which was presented to the Eugene City Council on August 12, 2002.
· City Council Adopted Growth Management Policies -- 1998
· Oregon Industries Web pages - information from Oregon Economic & Community Development
Department on Assisting Businesses
· Oregon Business Plan Discussion Paper for Leadership Summit 2003 - Refocus Economic Development
on Industry Clusters
Additional Materials Referenced and Available on the Website
(http://www.econw.com/EugeneEcDev/)
· Stepping Up: The Oregon Business Plan & Executive Summary (January 2003)
· Summary of Research and Final Recommendations for Growing the Sustainability Sector(s) in Lane
County (October 2003)
· Economic Strategy to Create a Strong Local Economy (December 2002)
· Contact - A Business Retention Expansion and Development Program (2003 Report)
· Perceptions of the Business Climate in Eugene (April 2003)
· Profiles of Change (June 2003)
· Connect the Dots (February 2003)
· Economic Gardening
· Theoretical Model of Import Replacement (October 1983)
Other Handouts Provided at Meetings
· Clackamas County Economic Development Plan Summary (Summer 1997)
· A Report on Big Box Stores - provided by Eugene-Springfield Solidarity Network/Jobs with Justice, June
2004
· Oregon. We Love Dreamers - a comparison of first-year operating ownership costs for hypothetical
businesses in Oregon, Illinois, Nevada, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Ohio
· An article from The Oregonian regarding the State's certified industrial sites
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040809\S040809B.doc