Morrow County and Port officials agree to working group to coordinate SIP negotiations

Morrow County and Port of Morrow officials, joined by Business Oregon staff, agreed on May 8 to form a small intergovernmental working group to create a joint negotiation framework for Strategic Investment Program (SIP) applications after lengthy discussion about statute changes, fee distribution and who should lead negotiations.

The meeting centered on a recent amendment that adds "affected ports" to SIP signatory requirements. Alex Albertton, Business Oregon's new business incentives coordinator, told the group that Business Oregon's role includes reviewing statutory compliance and that early consultations commonly involve the city, county and port so applicants can assess options before filing a formal application. "I'm the new business incentives coordinator for Business Oregon where I oversee our incentives programs," Albertton said, offering his office as a resource to counties and ports.

County staff outlined how SIPs typically proceed: confidential early talks, a pre-application that can allow limited early construction, local negotiations over taxable components and community service fees, public hearings for taxing districts, and final ratification by Business Oregon. A staff speaker emphasized that any negotiated subgroup agreement has no legal force until each governing body separately approves it by resolution and public hearing.

Participants also clarified how community service fees are allocated. "Seventy-five percent of the taxing authority" must agree to a distribution, a threshold that is calculated by tax share rather than a simple count of districts, a county staff member explained. That weighting means smaller districts have proportionally less sway in the tally.

The group contrasted SIPs with enterprise-zone (CRE) agreements: SIPs can include a taxable component plus a statutory community service fee and are generally more flexible for long build-outs, while enterprise-zone agreements often deliver property tax exemptions and have other distribution rules such as school-related provisions. Participants cited local examples — including Wheat Ridge, Orchard Wind and recent Amazon-related agreements — to illustrate how payments and schedules have been tailored in past deals.

A monthslong debate followed over whether the port should be the negotiating lead for projects on port-owned or port-served lands while the county should lead on projects outside the port's industrial/service area. Several participants proposed criteria-based "areas of influence" (for example, port industrial land or projects that receive port services) to determine who leads negotiations, rather than an informal or ad hoc approach.

After extended discussion about process, money and precedent, commissioners and port officials agreed in principle to form a small working group — composed of elected and staff representatives from the county and port — to draft an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). The working group will propose criteria for lead negotiation responsibility, visibility protocols so all jurisdictions see potential applications early, and a framework for how discretionary negotiated payments would be handled and reported. Participants said the draft IGA would return to each governing body for formal approval.

The meeting closed with plans to place the draft IGA on future agendas and to nominate working-group members at the Port commission's next meeting. No formal votes on any SIP agreements were taken at this meeting.