Okay.

Um, I think I'll just start this time.

Angel will catch up.

So I'm going to call to order this work session, the fourth grove city council.

There are there's no public comment will be taken, and the council will take no formal action.

Tonight's topic is on the police facility, and I'm going to turn it over to our assistant city manager, Kim Ezel.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

So tonight we'll be talking about the police facility bond.

Next slide.

We're going to go into a little bit about the purpose, some background about our previous conversations.

We'll do a quick recap of the polling results from January.

We'll talk a little bit about the May 2026 election results, and then we have some bond structure considerations that we like council direction on.

Next slide.

So tonight's purpose is to provide an update to council on the outcomes of the May 2026 election and reach council consensus on bond structure so that a staff is able to draft ballot language for council's review at the next work session.

Next slide.

This all lines up with our 2040 vision plan around community growth, outcome to improve public safety, and very specifically the action to build a new police facility.

This is the full background of the police facility up till now, 2015 to 2016 was the start of the needs assessment, followed by a property purchase and then detailed analysis.

By 2025, the city did go forward with the first bond, which was a very close vote.

Since then, there's been value engineering.

We've reviewed polling results, applied for an unsuccessful state grant, and now reach council consensus to place the bond on the November 2026 ballot.

Just a quick reminder that this is what we're looking at for the ballot timeline.

The last day to submit for the ballot title is in August August 14th of this year.

So we are working towards that timeline pretty aggressively over the next three council meetings.

Next slide.

These are some of the ballot considerations that were brought forward to you in November or for November.

It is a big ballot.

It's a general election year.

There's a lot of folks who are on the ballot, so we anticipate a larger turnout.

It's been one and a half years since the police facility ballot and six months since the city operating levy.

We expect a younger electorate with a higher voter turnout, and it would allow for some communications planning over the summer without recosting the police facility.

Next slide.

We did some polling in January.

The summary is that the bond can pass.

There is a decent percentage, but it will require a robust campaign, which is what staff has been working on over the last few months.

The other strong recommendation was that only one local revenue bond.

So do the bond ballot or the levy ballot, but don't combine them into the same election.

We normally do the operations levy uh three election cycles prior to expiration in order to give us additional uh time if we need to have additional ballots.

Um that levy expires in June 30th, 2028.

So that normally scheduled levy would be next May 2027.

These are some of the results from the poll that we did in January.

The the short version is that the poll uh the bond went over very well with women, folks who are over 50, non-affiliated voters, and those who are registered Republicans.

Uh, the only uh segment of the population that was statistically significantly negative on the ballot was registered democrats.

Looking at the May 2026 election results, there were 69 total funding measures statewide by local governments.

So that is city, county, school district, and special district.

Of those, there were 12 bond measures.

Um three of those were city bond measures and only one PASS.

There were 52 levy measures, five of those were city levy measures and two PASS, and five were general tax measures, but those were there was no city general tax measures.

I did look into it, those were all for the establishment or dissolution of special districts, or they did things like establish a logic tax.

There was also a statewide gas tax referendum, and that failed 83% no to 17% yes.

But I do want to highlight that the gas tax had no referendum had no organized support.

Um so once that kind of hit the ballot, there was no folks who are really pushing to pass that at that point.

And it did have organized option.

In the Portland metro area, it's a little bit of a different story than it was statewide.

The Tiger Police Public Works Facility Bond did fail 62 to 38.

But I do want to note that Tiger had some publicized leadership transitions that impacted that vote.

Uh the Lake Oswego fire station bond passed by a significant margin.

The Newburg School District operations levy did fail, as did the Clackamas County Sheriff's Operations Levy.

But both the Multnomah County Historical Society levy and the THPRD facility bond, which was a renewal, both passed.

Overall, looking at the Portland Metro area, two out of the three bonds passed, and three of the six total funding measures passed.

I just want to point out we did have C higher voter turnout than expected 41%, far exceeded uh the past three non-presidential primaries.

The Oregonian attribute that to a higher turnout of non-affiliated voters than we usually see during a primary.

Uh usually non-affiliated voters don't even receive a ballot or may not receive a ballot in a May primary election, but because the gas tax referendum was so highly publicized, that's where they theorize um larger non-affiliated turnout from any questions on May election results or polling results before we go into bond structure.

Any questions or comments?

Uh I just I want to make a comment, right?

I think it's really important that I there's a lot of pressure on voters um on people, right?

With inflation, gas prices.

I mean, bond like and having another taxility or a bond, right?

Is going to hurt a lot of people, like and also help a lot of people.

I just think I don't want our community, I think everyone on this council understands the pressure placed on our community members, um, increasing taxes or you know, property taxes.

Uh, and so I just want to like I just don't want anyone to think we're ignoring what's going on.

I mean, you go to the grocery store, like I'm gonna be really honest.

I haven't gone to the grocery store for a long time.

Thank you, Nate.

Um, but I went last night to get coffee because he's out of town, and I was like, I like literally I was shocked.

I was like a bag of coffee, 10 bucks now.

So I I just don't want our community to think like we know the pressure and the cost of things.

And so when we have this discussion about a need for a police station, we to we understand that.

Like we understand it's a big ask, but we also understand there's like a really big need.

Um, and I don't think any of us would be sitting in this position advocating for a police station um if we didn't really really need it.

So I just want to put that on public record that we all here understand the pressure.

And you know, I have friends who last time, you know, they apologized to me.

They're like, I'm sorry, mayor, I'm sorry, Melinda.

Like our property taxes have gone up by this much.

We just can't afford it.

So I just want to put that out there.

And I don't know if it's like needed, but I just had to say something.

Okay.

We can move on.

Um, so as I mentioned earlier, for staff to draft the bond language that meets state requirements.

Um, council should reach consensus on the bond structure to give us direction.

Key consideration for council this evening is the total term of the bond.

And overall, that means a lower term bond, so a bond that is a 20-year term will have a higher um year or uh yearly annual cost, but sorry, a short-term bond has a higher tax rate, but a lower cost over the life of the bond, and a longer term bond has a lower tax rate, but a higher cost over the term of the bond.

The previous ballot measure in May 2025 had a 20-year bond.

Next slide.

So you can see that more clearly on this chart.

The 20-year term length has the highest levy rate, highest approximate monthly cost of $15, annual cost of 175 with a lowest total cost over the term of the bond, 25 year, right in the middle there, 12 uh dollars a month and 30 year, the lowest monthly cost and annual cost, but the longest cost or largest cost over the term of the bond at 11129 and then 1557.9 million.

This is assuming an assessed value of 254,000, um, the same bond amount as the last election and the double A bond rating, and that 254 was the same estimate that was used in the questions or discussion on so we just need to have consensus of what we want to ask for so we can give staff direction for the bond language.

Any thoughts?

I mean, I always have thoughts, but I'd rather not start with my thoughts.

Go ahead.

Okay, go ahead, Councillor Gusin.

No, I was just gonna ask is the conversation surrounding what what we want the term links to be correct.

What okay?

Councillor Schimmel.

Yeah, just more uh explanation or yeah, how characterizing each of those three options in terms of I don't how other cities have approached that either those options or like uh how would how would we articulate either of them to the public?

Yeah, so say a lot, most cities will go with a 20 or 25.

30 is not unheard of.

Um, for example, I do know that Tiger's bond that they went for um recently was a 30 year.

Um, but it really comes one way to think about it sometimes is that if you have a shorter term bond, it's going to fall off of your tax rules, and so you've paid it off sooner and you're able to put another bond on for another needed um, but the 30 year bond when you're in a time where maybe you want to kind of even out some of those costs, you might want to do that.

Um so that's really why it's a policy decision.

But those are different reasons why you might go with either either side of that coin.

Counselor Falkner.

Yeah, is the microphone I can't hear you guys.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, Counselor Gustaverson.

That's okay.

You know, the attractive thing about that, of course, is for the average, you know, household only spending $15, you know, $11 a month instead of $15 a month.

But um, I'm not sure that the four dollar difference a month is gonna be the thing that gets this across the the line on you know on the ballot.

So I think when people are voting, they're gonna be looking to us to you know make you know the the sound financial fiscal responsible decision, and to me that's the 20 year versus the 30.

Thank you, counselor.

Counselor Gustison.

Uh I would I would agree with counselor Falconer.

I would go with the 20 year term link.

Okay, thank you.

And I I see a head nod from council council president Valenzuela, Counselor Martinez, Counselor Schimmels, head nodding and counselor Marshall, do you?

So I think we're gonna go there's consensus.

I think it's unanimous to go for the 20 year.

Thank you, council.

So when we bring back uh draft ballot language, it will include that there is a 20-year term on the bond.

Appreciate it.

Okay, is that all you know?

No, we have more one more slide, but I'm gonna take it over to to Chief to do the fun one.

Um as you can see, that's kind of the communications plan that we have mapped out.

High level overview of it.

We've been working closely, uh, myself and Lauren with the city's communication team to develop the informational flyers and the posters and the collateral um for that.

The starting now in June and July, where we have the farmers market doing outreach.

Um Lauren has scheduled a bunch of events throughout the summer, and we're gonna be adding more as the summer goes on to get out and have that uh educational part uh to the community, the barbecue, the facility tours will kind of be throughout the summer, right up until the election.

I think from what I've heard is that's one of the most um uh the best ways to kind of to illustrate why we need a new police station to show the existing station in some of the limitations there as well in August.

Um we'll transition that new neutral messaging, national night out's a big event, so we get out for that, and then in September schedule have the mailer go out, uh the community open house public house and then just continue with those outreach.

Thank you.

I have a couple of comments and some questions.

National night out um for the last two years has been like organized where the police department goes to different events that like the beehive host one and then a neighborhood.

Are we gonna restructure national night out so that it's a city organized event um to try to draw people to the police station and maybe have even the library?

I mean, what what can we use as far as city spots to like really get people to come out to National Ayout?

It used to be done on the campus of Pacific.

Um, and that was a hugely widely attended event.

And it's literally right across from the police station.

So I'm I'm just giving some constructive criticism that where we are now, we need to shift back away from what we've been doing the last couple of years.

And I think it'd be really in our best interest as a city and as a police department to be leading and like helping with this national night out instead of waiting for a neighborhood group or assist a living facility to say, like, hey, come to our event.

Like we if we want people, I'm just gonna be super blunt.

If we want people to show up for us, we gotta show up for people.

So that's one comment.

And then my other question is as we start planning these events.

Um, I think like the comms team is going to be at the farmers market June 17th.

Can we can staff send emails out to counselors?

And so then counselors can sign up or attend to help support.

Um, and then I don't know, and then I guess we'll, yeah.

And I do have at least three to four people right now that are willing to be.

I'll I'll talk offline about the pack.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay, seeing none.

I think that that's all you guys needed.

Okay, so I'm gonna adjourn this work session and we will reconvene in eight minutes.

We are.

Okay, hopefully, TV C TV is ready too.

So thank you.

Okay, I'd like to call to order this work session, the Force Grove City Council.

Uh, the topic is on enterprise zones, and no public comment will be taken, and the council will take no formal action.

Um, and I'm gonna turn it over to I'll turn it over to Jesse.

I was looking at Kim that I'll go with you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um members of the council.

I'm joined tonight by Kim Azell, our assistant city manager.

I'll be going through the first portion of the presentation, and then Kim will be joining in at the second part of the presentation.

So with that, we'll do a little bit of recap.

Um, Mariah, if you would next slide, please.

Next slide.

Um, so the purpose of tonight's work session is to consider the Forest Grove Cornelius Enterprise Zone Economic Development Center program.

The program expires June 30th, 2026.

Council had a work session on May 26th, and requested staff bring back some policy options regarding the enterprise zone.

Next slide.

So the areas that are highlighted and uh or bolded are just kind of words that are somehow have a nexus to the enterprise zone.

So if you look at the goal statement for the economy, you see a diverse economy, you see high-paying jobs.

If you look at the outcome, um, it's balanced, it's diversified, it's industrial, high-paying jobs again.

Next slide.

If you look at some of the action items, you'll see both commercial and industrial.

You'll see small business, workforce development.

You'll see just that kind of undergirding of attracting business, and then again supporting and retaining small and local businesses.

So next slide.

So, what we did is we kind of just did a nexus to the enterprise zone.

So for a balanced and diversified economy and looking at that, that also includes the city's kind of economic tax base.

You're really looking at industrial growth.

That's what the enterprise zone focuses on.

There is some commercial growth, but it's limited to hotels and motels, no other commercial businesses are uh applicable.

High paying jobs, that really has to do with the wage requirements under the enterprise zone, and we'll get into that in a little bit.

Um with regard to commercial and industrial businesses, the enterprise zone is really focused on industrial growth.

Um local and small businesses.

The thing to kind of keep in mind about that is the number of jobs and the minimum investment criteria.

Attracting business, that's that's really about the program kind of overall, and then as for terms of workforce development, uh the community service fee is applicable to workforce development in the sense that the first three years are limited to economic development of which workforce development could be a portion of that.

Next slide.

So we're gonna pass it over to Kim.

All right.

Oh, good.

Mike is on.

Uh, first three slides are going to be a review of some of the material we went over last time about what is an enterprise zone, and then we'll get into policy questions.

So as a refresher, uh, enterprise zone is a state-sponsored economic development program that gives businesses a property tax exemption for up to five years if they meet certain requirements.

We'll come back to this again later, but it is specifically only a property tax exemption.

Um it's not income sales or other tax exemption.

Uh the program is designed to attract living wage jobs, encourage new rein and reinvestment and target specific industries per the state statutes.

Uh again, enterprise zones do not exempt income and payroll taxes.

It is limited to industrial and some commercial businesses.

Commercial businesses are specifically motel hotel, uh, and then industrial uses are pretty broad but include manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, food processing, and technology, except for data centers as of last Friday.

Um, there is now a moratorium on data centers for a year until the state legislature revisits the enterprise zone program, um, presumably in the next session, and retail businesses are not eligible.

It is administered by local governments, but it must comply with state requirements.

And so that's a lot of the research we've been doing is what are the state requirements and then what flexibility does a local jurisdiction have when adopting this program.

The state law does sunset the program in June 30, 2032, unless the legislature extends.

Next slide.

So state has different requirements for both the three-year program and then a five-year program.

In the three-year, you must uh any business who's looking to be authorized under this program must increase full-time permanent employment by at least one job or 10%.

They may not have any concurrent job losses within Oregon, meaning they cannot um lose jobs in another part of the state in order to gain the property tax abatement in this part of the state.

They may must maintain the employment level for the duration of the exemption.

So they cannot hire on the one or 10% increase new employment, but then drop that um after the second or third year.

And they must enter into a first source hiring agreement with work source organ, which does compel the firm to consider Oregon-based qualified applicants for new jobs before hiring from elsewhere.

The five-year abatement again must meet all requirements of the three-year abatement, and then there are a few more requirements, uh, must receive approval through a written agreement between the firm and the local government that is sponsoring the program.

The uh applicant is required to pay a school support fee in years four and five that is equal to 15 to 30% of abated taxes, and that is recommended that percentage is recommended by the school district.

And then the average compensation for new hires must be at or above 150% of the county average wage.

And that is new average compensation, not every new hire must be over that um average wage.

In the Forest Grove Cornelius um enterprise zone, we have a few local requirements that uh differ from the uh state requirements.

First being that you must invest at least 50,000 in building equipment, machinery, or structure.

Sorry, this is for the three-year program.

Pay all new employees an average of 150% of the minimum wage, pay an application fee equal to one-tenth of a percent of the investment with a cap of 50,000.

I want to just clarify that the application fee that one-tenth of one percent is the cap that is set by the state.

The cap of 50,000 is what the local requirement change is.

Um, increase full-time employment by one person or 10% and maintain increased employment.

For the five-year program for the city, um, all of the above, plus we have set a community support fee at 25% of abated taxes in years four and five.

The school support fee again recommended by the school district is 15%, and then pay all employees an average of 150% of the average Washington County annual wage, as well as um continuing to use the first source hiring agreement with work source organ.

Next slide.

So this is a we're going to go back through all of the policy questions that we have previously gone through with council, um, but I do want to pause here to talk about this area question.

Um, so right now, the enterprise zone, as we have developed, is covers both Forest Grove as well as Cornelius.

Cornelius has not yet had the opportunity to consider the enterprise zone program and is considering going in the next year between now and the next legislative session, um, working with a consultant about how they may approach an enterprise zone program, either on their own or in partnership with Forest Grove.

We have the option that we may council may direct staff to attempt to engage with Cornelius in that effort as one of the options that we could consider this evening.

So we have a few options.

One is to continue going forward with an enterprise zone based on the policy discussion that we have this evening.

Um, but we would likely amend Cornelius from our areas because Cornelius hasn't had an opportunity to review the enterprise zone thoroughly.

Second option is that we could pursue making some policy decisions tonight and continue the enterprise zone program, but also engage with Cornelius and perhaps amend our enterprise zone after more discussion.

And the third is our uh enterprise zone does lapse at the end of June 30th, um 2026, and we could choose to let it lapse and then reapply engage with Cornelius or go forward on our own and then reapply with a new enterprise zone.

So wanted to bring those options up before we get too deep into the weeds on the policy questions.

Let's do it now.

Yeah.

Okay.

So before we start um unpacking this and discussing it, are there any questions that individual counselors have for staff?

Anything like you want to clear up or you want to make sure you understand the context and the decision we're making.

And I want to say, you know, this is just the beginning part.

We'll see.

We still have other slides, but this is the most this could very much determine how we proceed through the rest of the slides.

Yeah.

Right.

So any questions for staff discussion.

Go ahead, Counselor Falkner.

Well, I think all of my questions are sort of in the weeds on.

Well, I think all of my questions are sort of in the weeds on, and so it would, you know, depending on what we decide on this question, I may I may just defer all of my questions.

Okay.

You want to say anything yet?

Well, my recommendation would let it the uh let it sunset to give us room to get the policy question right.

Correct.

I agree.

I mean, do we have consensus that because this up that gives us the most flexibility?

We can still engage with Cornelius if we want to.

We can see what's going on with the legislature and that we can actually like build this is a 10-year, this is like not exactly marriage, but pretty darn close.

It is a 10-year commitment.

You know what I mean?

So we really want to make sure we get it right.

So is there consensus that we let that we let it sunset as Counselor Schimmel said, and we continue to like work through these policy questions.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but how much um does that put on staff to read after we go through it again?

Is it gonna put a lot more stress towards that person having to redo the whole enterprise process?

Well, let's staff answer because I was gonna say okay.

So it's a little bit difficult to discern what we've heard from business Oregon and Kim, please correct me if I'm mistaken in any way that the and I'm gonna distinguish between a reapplication, which would be extending the existing program from a new application.

It's my understanding according to business Oregon that if we let it sunset, number one, you can apply for a new application.

So you can do that.

Uh secondly, it it is a little bit more of a process in the sense that you have to um uh apply uh all the new businesses, um kind of have some increased validation.

Uh so there's a little bit more involved in that process.

However, if you there's also this kind of trade-off that if you approve something now and then you go back to amend it later, that could be potentially just as much work as well, if that makes sense.

So the one thing that we have confirmed twice now is that you can apply for a new application.

It does require what we've heard as quote, a little bit more work, uh, but not an arduous amount, if that makes sense.

So yeah, and not to belabor the point, but like me individually, I wouldn't I wouldn't be comfortable renewing what we have right now.

Like I don't think what we have right now is a product I want to move forward with.

So um, you know, and then you could even argue on the complete opposite that maybe we do all this work and we're like, hey, we don't want to go forward with creating enterprise zone, and then it would be no work for staff.

I'm just playing like all the I'm just playing all the the views of it.

So I I believe we have consensus to let it sunset.

I would like um to have consensus.

I would like to go continue going through these questions because then if we if we choose to give staff direction to collaborate with Cornelius, then staff has an idea of like some of the things we're wanting and some of the things we're pondering while they go forward.

That'd be very helpful.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

So we'll continue on.

Great.

Uh the first policy question really was about um area.

Um, so an additional question beyond um partnering with Cornelius is if there was any areas that are currently within the Forest Grove Enterprise Zone that we would like to remove or others to add.

Staff does not recommend any changes currently to the map.

Can we ask questions?

Yeah, because I don't think it makes sense to wait until the end of if that's okay.

We're having this question, do it.

So I was I one of my questions that I was so I apologize I couldn't make the last work session.

I did watch it, I did see everyone was wearing a jean jacket.

I was sorry I wasn't here to wear mine.

Um I was wondering, you know, the there are a few times, and here's the very first one that that pops up where staff recommends no change.

And you know, my question that I had watching the last one and even preparing for this work session is, you know, I I didn't see anything in the report, and I and I'm apologies if I just missed it, but I'm not seeing like the analysis or explanation for for that recommendation.

Um, and so I'd appreciate to understand, you know, and if and if if the answer is, you know, you there was there, yeah.

I would like to know when was the economic development um commission, you know, were they given a chance to weigh in on this map?

Like who who made that recommendation and why?

Good question.

Yep, very fair.

Um, we would be happy to come back with more analysis um related to a lot of these answers um for many of the areas where we have um either staff recommendations.

Thanks.

Yeah, that's really because I don't I I guess you know, I mean, the reason I'm asking that is because I just looking at this thumbnail.

I don't I don't know.

And I I would love to dig into this map because I think you know, I'm looking at it and I'm seeing, you know, uh it's running through, you know, maybe some future projects that are many years down the road.

And I don't know if it makes sense for those areas to be included in an enterprise zone going forward because they might not be suitable for the type of industrial, you know, use that that currently presents.

So I've got lots of questions that sort of follow up on that question.

Understand completely.

And I think even having an overlay of some of where our industrial and um commercial zones are compared to um what we're looking at this map can make a lot of sense.

Thank you for the feedback.

Oh, I like think I mean, if that's fine with staff, I think as we unpack this, since we're just doing a lot of work, we should ask questions as we go through.

I mean, we're not in a time compressed state at this point.

Next slide.

Uh so currently uh the application fee by state statute is limited to one tenth of one percent.

Forest Grove has a cap on that application fee of 500,000 or 50,000.

Common practice that we found from other jurisdictions around us is that they do not have a cap.

Um, and we recommend removing that cap to align with um our neighboring our neighbors.

There are other examples below of what that could mean.

So 10 million dollars would be 10,000 and 300 million dollars would be 300,000.

Any questions or you know, so what's the I mean, I agree.

I don't oh wait, Counselor Gaff's a sign, go ahead.

I was just gonna agree.

Yeah.

No cap.

Yeah, I don't think we should have a cap either.

Uh next slide.

Oh, real quick, I sorry, did uh what is uh the requirements on what that fee can be spent on?

Uh that fee, there's no uh limits on what that fee can be spent on.

The only limit is on a community service fee in the first three years must be spent on economic development.

Oh cool, yes.

Yeah, it's it's it's broad.

Uh uh next slide.

This one is the minimum investment, state statute minimum is 50,000.

There is no state maximum.

Right now, our minimum lines up with the state minimum of 50,000, which has not been updated since the program was put into place in 2006.

Both Beaverton and Hillsboro have a $1 million minimum.

Um the lowest vest investment that Forest Grove has seen under the program was a little more than half a million dollars.

Uh, we did not have a staff recommendation on this, and if we move forward with the and as we move forward with the consultant, uh one of our goals would be to create um a staff recommendation or at least um narrow down some of these options and would love to know any feedback that council has on that.

Go ahead, Counselor Schimmel.

Well, like like the uh counselor Fuckner saying earlier, is that some analysis on like what would be meaningful and still accessible?

With respect to the map and what land, what industries we want to attract.

What that should be or that change.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I'm I concur and I agree.

I definitely think we need to increase the minimum.

Um, but also like what having the context and the information to know where we hit that sweet spot because we do have some smaller parcels.

And if we, you know, in a further policy question, if we choose to tie like square footage or area, like if we try to do something that's like scaffolded to get because right now that my understanding from the last work session was this these enterprise zones really typically are benefit like larger corporations, and that's not exactly how the land and how our community works in Forest Grove.

And so if we can build something that does a minimum investment but still allows something smaller um to come in and create jobs and like grow and expand.

I mean, I think that when you look at the type of business model of old trapper, like that's something, you know, that's a an example.

And with that being said, with old trapper, if it's are we looking at is this is an addition to an existing corporation?

Like they can do they can they can do this investment as a as an investment in their own business to expand the facility.

That's like a little bit of a different, if my understanding it's right with staffing correct me, but there's like an opportunity within the enterprise zone that you can do a reinvestment and get an abatement.

So with the reinvestment, would that be considered the $50,000 or so?

So if somebody just want to do a smaller investment, that's the only thing I would run into within it with the issue is that if it's if it's a $50,000 investment, they're just looking to add like a little bit of square footage at some machinery kind of thing, which will boost the um the assessed value of the property, but we're limiting it to a large amount where it might not actually hit that amount.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

I think it's a two different things, but am I mistaken?

Um there are two different avenues you can take underneath the same program.

Either reinvestment or a new investment.

But I will also add that if they're adding like a small plot of machinery for a $50,000 investment, they would still need to add at least one employee or 10% of the employment base.

So a very small investment in a larger property likely won't do that.

But it it may be maybe possible.

Okay, so if I may, please I just want to understand this clearly.

So if it's a reinvestment, there's no limit uh in terms of uh the the amount of it of reinvestment.

Uh like it could be 50,000.

There, yes, both for new investment and reinvestment, the minimum is 50,000.

Oh, okay.

Can we separate that to be as a reinvestment via smaller amount?

New investment be a larger amount.

We believe that is possible.

This is still an emerging kind of questions and answers to this program, and that's something that we can look into.

Okay.

I guess the other thing to maybe also keep in mind when when considering this is the tax abatement only applies to the new investment or the reinvestment.

So you could have a 10 million dollar business.

And if you invest half a million dollars, you only get the abatement on the half a million, you do not get the abatement on the 10 million.

All right.

Uh any other questions around minimum investment.

I do what if I just can repeat what I've heard, it's about really, and this is something that we talked about at staff is this idea of balancing the investment for small businesses and large businesses and making sure that there's a lot of opportunity within the enterprise zone.

And I think in all these layers of it's like having the assessments that the proof, like the research that so we know like when we're making like we can tell our constituents, we can tell the community like we did this because this is what the data is showing, right?

Like we want to be data supported.

Yeah.

Um, right.

I don't want to take that's why on both sides don't okay.

All right, next slide.

Similar conversation um about the number of jobs instead of minimum investment.

Right now, the state minimum is one employee or 10% of current total employees.

Um I do want there is a fine point here where it's also 10% of total employees who are employed by the corporation or by the business within 30 miles of the enterprise zone.

So if they have any employment within 30 miles, then they are required to increase their total employment by 10% um for the enterprise zone property tax abatement.

Do all of those employees within 30 miles of the property qualify for their job requirement?

No, they must create the jobs within the enterprise zone, but they have to create a percentage that includes 30 all employment within 30 miles of the enterprise zone.

So if I could maybe give an example, if you have an office in Portland and you have 10 employees in that officer, so let's just say you have 30 employees in that office, the minimum requirement of the 10% would be three that you would have to hire in the enterprise zone.

Portland's 26 miles from Forest Grove.

So that would uh so state minimum.

Um sorry, go ahead, go ahead, cancel Shimmel.

Yeah, as far as uh jobs, uh I just want to confirm as terms of context that their jobs hired by the the owner or the company versus Larry jobs.

Yes, as we understand it is yeah, it is not contracted positions.

Um so staff recommendation was to increase the requirement one in 10% is rather low, especially for a new investment.

And what we've heard from council has been that this uh to to embrace this program as a way to both increase wages and increase jobs within forest grove industrial areas, um, some other options to consider if we're staying the same, um, or creating perhaps a job density requirement.

So the average um job or industrial job to square footage we found is about one job per thousand square feet.

Um so if we made a job density requirement of one new job per thousand square feet of investment um total area, then that would be average for industrial job growth.

Yeah, I think I'm in favor of tying because I if you go back to our 2040 plan, that I think that was an action or an outcome.

We wanted live living weight jobs, like we wanted and you know this is supposed to help industrial development, which the whole city needs, right?

Like that's how we continue to be able to give good full service amenities and livability, right?

Is we really need to fix that, like we need to attract more um industrial development, but we also want to make sure the development, and you know, I understand like you can create revenue without having it tied to jobs, but what we heard during that 2040 um planning and what's in our strategic plan is to bring jobs, and I do fully support that as well because you know, as a in my other jobs, and like we all know like having jobs where you live and having young people know, like, hey, I can do this job, and or I can go to like we would have university and we'd have living wage jobs.

I think it's really important.

I, you know, when I was like chatting with Jesse about this after last work session, I just also want to like make sure we have some options, and I would like it again to be grounded with data, but you know, I didn't want to just say like, hey, we should have a minimum of 20 employees or 25, like, and I'm just throwing out a number because what about those like two-acre, those like smaller plots of industrial land, right?

And I want to make sure that we so anyways, I don't know if it's an option thing.

This is definitely I would like to see it.

I would like the minimum to increase by a lot.

Um, but I don't know exactly what is the best avenue.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I I mean, I agree.

And I think that, you know, like you said before, I think you know, all of these, all of these recommendations or any policy change that that we you know eventually decide on.

I think that they all need to be supported by data.

And I'm I I definitely think that you know we should increase it, but I don't know if either of these options here, you know, I don't think stay the same as is appropriate, right?

But I don't know why either of these I agree, and there seems to be a similar dynamic between this uh the map and the minimum investment in terms of making it meaningful but accessible.

I mean it all seems to intersect with the the size of the lot, the what opportunity industrial opportunities there are, that what you can attract for that map and what what's an appropriate job uh level for for what you could do there.

Can I can I say one more thing?

Like in this discussion that I don't hopefully it's still on topic, but I think also as we're figuring these things out and doing this data, like we also need to be like what are we hearing from other like from businesses or industry and like and also how are we gonna market like if we're gonna build this program to attract certain types of industry, like we should be building that marketing and that recruitment package as we're building this out so our economic development coordinator can be selling it and like explaining it.

Um let's get all the tools done at the same time and make sure that it's an alignment.

Yeah.

I hear what you're saying about yeah, really aligning what our economic opportunity analysis has told us, what our economic development strategic plan is going to tell us with this analysis of this program so that they're all aiming towards the same goals.

Absolutely.

Right.

Okay, next slide.

Similar to previous, um, state minimum is minimum wage for years one through three, and then 150% of county average annual wage for years four through five.

Uh Forest Groves uh requirements are a little bit greater.

We require 150% of minimum wage, um, 150% instead of 100% of minimum wage for years one through three.

Both Hillsborough and Beaverton do have lower numbers and both tied exclusively to minimum wage uh based on the fact that these are um higher than some of our neighboring cities, we'd recommended no current requirement, but would like to include that in the analysis.

Okay, next slide.

Community support fee.

The statutory maximum is 25%.

Um we do not have the fee in years one through three, but we do have that fully maxed out 25% in years four through five.

Um Beaverton does not have those the fee uh in years one through three and has a slightly lower fee of 20% in years four and five.

Hillsboro has uh done some math with their fee um that ties it to more jobs as a lower fee, lower jobs is a higher fee.

Um the calculation is based on assessed value though, and so it can disincentivize um property investment in favor of jobs, which is a trade-off that we could explore as well.

Funds in years one through three as we've commented previously must be spent on economic development.

But years four and five can go into the general fund.

You know I we don't have to do a five year enterprise.

We don't and that is don't is that the next slide.

Okay.

I might probably all right um there's no comment I sorry I had a question about the um the the current community um support fee what do we what do we spend that money on if if we do have any of that money that came in at some point what did we spend it on before previously how does that how does that get programmed is there council input does that come to you know so for for right now I think there's only been one instance where we received um right now it just goes into the general fund because it's in years four and five for the enterprise zone um most of the applications that Forest Grover has received in the past were for three years.

And so um we didn't we didn't receive a community support fee in the first three years.

But that will be a discussion for council in uh when we are coming up on receiving years four and five um at a biennium budgeting conversation about where we would like to see those funds go knowing that they are one-time funds um next slide uh this is the question about duration state statute minimum is three years max is five both um Hillsborough and Beaverton have a five year though Clackamas County cities are limited to three um we can have different requirements for years four and five than in years one through three I think it's been um kind of clearly laid out throughout the presentation uh I will also point out that Clackamas County while it has a uh limited duration of three years to its enterprise zone does have a strategic investment program um that goes for a much longer duration has another it's an alternative um economic development incentive and um for much higher um levels of investment so some options are we can limit to three or we can allow a five year abatement but increase the eligibility requirements or change the eligibility requirements um to what we would like to see them reflected in a five year program.

I mean I think I feel like we're gonna say I mean are we still want just more information on why we would do I mean I could tell you my opinion but it's based on just my opinion not any when we come back to council next we will have much more data.

Okay.

Going to the next slide do you want to say something counselor Shomo wants to well I agree with you and the I mean it's the it's the some substantially more for a five year or so three I think if we were to continue that public benefit substantially greater.

And this is the last requirement that is something that is currently in the state statute which is the school support fee.

The state minimum is 15% the maximum is 30.

It's only applied in years four and five the revenue is not received by the school it goes to the state of Oregon not the local school district or goes through the local school district to the state of Oregon and then is reallocated.

Forest Griff Hillsboro and Beaverton are all the same at 15%.

This is a number that is recommended by the school district um the staff does not at this time recommend any change but in a future presentation we'll make sure we reach out to the school district as well.

That was going to be my comment is you know I couldn't I wasn't sure if it was discussed last time but I mean we say that Forest Grove school the the school district you know made the recommendation for the current program but I think that that was a very long time ago and so I don't know what their current recommendation would be.

And so I hear from them and next slide our last is if there's any other potential requirements that are not explicitly laid out in state statute that you would like staff to explore so a couple of options that we put just as examples would be things like must have land use approval before they're eligible to apply or must make an investment within two years of the application approval.

Are those are those did those options come from best practices by other municipalities or where do those two options come from the two options came from staff brainstorming on things that might make for easier it can be easier to uh do a land use once something is already land use approved because you already know how much that investment's going to be and you have a little bit more data information and it prevents folks and both of these items would prevent folks from um kind of stacking incentives over a longer time period.

So it would force folks to so that way we don't have that situation where we found some um folks in the last uh couple of weeks stacking enterprise zone um pre-applications and authorizations going out 10 15 years.

Okay.

I I imagine this is where the legislature is gonna send some signals on any other requirements.

I mean, I I I hear what's going on in Hillsborough and in terms of arresting the responsibility from staff to council on approving them, for example, but there may be other things from the legislature.

Yeah, I concur.

I think that the legislature is gonna bring it up.

I mean, so they have the moratorium, they have to they have to do something with enterprise, and that's also I think is a really good idea to start doing some initial research so we know what our position is, and then also not gonna rush renew and build it the way we want it built and look towards our state legislators to give us some direction.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jesse.

Thanks for make I just want to real quick because I I mean I I think what gets lost in this conversation is because we're oh we're talking about jobs and you know developing industry here, and I think that that's one really important side of sort of the the calculus.

But I think one thing that you know really, and I know you know you've said this keeps you up at night, and it does me too.

It's and Jesse, thank you for sort of like alluding to this earlier when you suggested that because you know, when we reflect on the goals and and of you know, from the 2040 vision, it says a lot about a diverse economy.

And to me, that means you know, not just a place where people you know and work also diversifying our tax base because I think that that's an element that's lost in this conversation because what we're doing is baiting property taxes, which is primarily the biggest portion of our revenue stream.

And so, like these are you know, when I look at that map, it's huge and it's scary because you know, we're talking about evading property taxes, and so you know, making sure that we're getting something that investment is really really important.

Um, but also making sure that you know, at the end of the day, the expectation is like you know, these are businesses that are gonna go on to our tax roles to maybe relieve some of the pressure that we were talking about earlier from our residents because they are having to we're gonna be going out to them for another operation levy here in a couple of years.

Because we with without our residents, we're not able to pay our bills, and so that's sort of a cliff thing that keeps me up at night.

And we, you know, it's not just about creating jobs, yes, that's really great.

Also about diversifying our tax base so that we can take some profits.

So sorry, I just know you're gonna get off my chest spot on the last time.

Yeah, well, thank you for sharing any other final remarks on this topic before.

Thank you all for a great meeting and meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.