Appendix A: Prosperity Council Engagement Report -- Part 1 of 2

APPENDIX A Prosperity Council Engagement Report

Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report Overview and Purpose The Oregon Prosperity Council was created as part of Oregon’s Prosperity Roadmap, initiated by Governor Tina Kotek. The Prosperity Council was charged with developing recommendations to execute and develop the strategy’s three main goals: retain and grow Oregon businesses, catalyze job creation, and accelerate 1 Oregon’s economic growth. The Prosperity Council wanted to ground its recommendations in stakeholder input, in addition to research and analysis. These engagement efforts were designed to gather perspectives from a broad range of stakeholders and community members across Oregon and to inform discussions about the state's economic future. Together, they provided opportunities for participants to share their experiences, priorities, and ideas for strengthening Oregon’s long-term prosperity. This appendix summarizes the statewide survey, listening session findings, and inbound letters, including who participated and how engagement was conducted. Findings are organized around five key topic areas: economic development tools, Oregon’s tax structure, permitting and regulations, land use and site readiness, and talent development. Engagement Overview To support broad statewide participation from a wide range of stakeholders and residents, the Prosperity Council’s engagement process used a mixed-methods feedback collection strategy. The project team for the engagement process included staff from ECOnorthwest and Gard Communications, as well as designated staff supporting the Council’s co-chairs. Open-ended, structured input was collected through a public survey, while more free-form qualitative input was gathered through facilitated listening sessions, letters, and memoranda that were submitted proactively to Council members and staff. This approach allowed the project team to identify recurring themes across a large volume of feedback while preserving more detailed stakeholder perspectives. 1 https://www.oregon.gov/gov/policies/pages/prosperity-council.aspx Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 1

Exhibit 1 below summarizes the three forms of engagement: what the engagement was, who could and did participate, how the engagement was conducted and shared with the public, as well as the period of time that the public had the opportunity to engage in the process. Exhibit 1. Summary of Engagement Efforts Engagement Summary Public Survey Lead: ECOnorthwest designed and administered a public opt-in survey in partnership with the Prosperity Council Co-Chairs’ staff. Audience: Businesses, coalitions, community-based organizations, public sector partners, and individuals were invited to participate. As shown in Exhibit XX, respondents represented all Oregon counties except Grant County, with participation from every region of the state. The survey received 2,833 responses, of which 1,039 included written feedback and were included in the analysis. The remaining 1,794 responses did not include written feedback and were excluded from the analysis. Method: The survey was distributed directly to stakeholders, as well as posted on the Prosperity Council website. Participants provided background information about themselves and their organizations, including organizational type, industry sector, and organization size. Survey questions solicited feedback on challenges, opportunities, solutions, implementation actors, existing programs, and visions of success across the Business Climate, Tools for Growth, and Workforce topic areas (see Exhibit XX). Timeline/Timeframe: The survey was open from February 6 through March 25, 2026. Listening Sessions Lead: ECOnorthwest developed a listening session toolkit, including a facilitator guide and report-out form, in partnership with the Prosperity Council Co-Chairs’ staff. Audience: Listening sessions were facilitated by interested stakeholders, Council members, the Chief Prosperity Officer, Regional Solutions staff, and other community facilitators. More than 60 listening sessions were held in over 25 locations across all eleven of Oregon’s economic development regions, including rural, coastal, agricultural, and urban communities. Participants represented a broad cross- section of Oregon’s civic, economic, and community landscape, including government agencies, tribal governments, higher education institutions, workforce and labor organizations, economic development partners, tourism representatives, business associations, nonprofits, and private-sector employers across multiple industries. Method: The project team developed and distributed a listening session toolkit to support facilitated discussions about Oregon’s economic challenges and potential solutions. The toolkit was shared directly with stakeholders and posted on the Prosperity Council website. Facilitators submitted session Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 2

summaries through an online form or by email. The project team reviewed submissions and categorized individual policy options by topic area and key theme to identify recurring trends, areas of alignment, and priority issues. Timeline/Timeframe: Listening sessions were conducted between February 2 and May 22, 2026. Letters and Memos Lead: ECOnorthwest collected and analyzed letters, memoranda, and other written submissions provided by interested stakeholders. Audience: Stakeholders submitted more than 45 letters and memoranda representing a broad range of perspectives, including major employers, statewide business associations, public agencies, universities, venture capital organizations, environmental and transportation advocacy groups, government affairs representatives, and individual residents. Submissions reflected perspectives from established and emerging industries, including software, technology, biotechnology, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, consumer products, agriculture, food production, utilities, public safety, and small businesses. Method: In addition to the structured engagement activities, the Prosperity Council website provided an email address for public submissions, and stakeholders also shared feedback directly with individual Council members. ECOnorthwest incorporated all received emails, letters, and memoranda into the overall analysis. The project team reviewed written submissions and categorized individual suggestions by topic area and key theme to identify recurring trends, areas of alignment, and priority issues across the feedback. Timeline/Timeframe: Written submissions were received between February 2 and May 22, 2026. Technical Approach: Engagement Design and Analysis Public Survey The public survey was structured around three broad focus areas related to Oregon’s economic competitiveness. Within each focus area, respondents were asked a common set of open-ended questions designed to identify challenges, opportunities, existing resources, and potential solutions. Focus areas and definitions: ● Business Climate: Oregon's business climate reflects the extent to which the state provides a predictable and competitive environment for employers through practical policies on regulation, permitting, and taxation, while maintaining long-term revenue stability to support public services and economic growth. ● Workforce: Oregon's workforce environment reflects how well the state's education, training, and talent development systems align Oregonians' skills with the needs of employers, particularly in Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 3

growing sectors, and how effectively those systems adapt over time to support economic opportunity and a competitive labor market. ● Tools for growth: Oregon's economic development toolkit reflects the set of policies, programs, and investments (such as site readiness, land use and permitting processes, incentives, infrastructure, and local initiatives) that shape the state's ability to attract new businesses and support the growth and expansion of existing employers. To better understand the perspectives represented in the responses, participants were asked a series of background questions, including whether they were responding on behalf of a public or private organization, their industry sector, and the size of their business or organization. Following these questions, participants were invited to provide written feedback across any of the survey focus areas relevant to their experience. Exhibit 2 summarizes the questions included in the survey provided for each focus area. Exhibit 2. Open-ended Survey Questions What challenge would you like addressed in the Prosperity Council’s recommendations? Q1. What is the biggest barrier or friction point in this area? Q2. What solution or specific change would you make? Who has to act for this to happen? (i.e. the Legislature, local governments, employers, Q3. education/training partners, etc.) What existing state programs and policies does Oregon have that are most helpful to you that you Q4. want to see continue? What promising models or effective best practices have you seen in other states that you’d like Q5. Oregon to emulate? The project team analyzed survey responses using Atlas.ti, a qualitative analysis software that supported the systematic coding of individual responses. The team applied a deductive coding framework based on the study's primary topic areas, including economic development tools, Oregon's tax structure, permitting and regulations, land use and site readiness, and talent development. These high-level categories served as the primary analytical structure for organizing responses. Within each category, the team applied subcodes to capture the nature and context of stakeholder feedback. Subcodes identified themes such as support for existing programs, recommendations for new or revised policies, development constraints, workforce challenges, perceived barriers to business growth, and stakeholder sentiment. When responses addressed multiple topics, the team applied multiple codes to reflect the full scope of the feedback. The team also used targeted keyword searches for policies and programs identified through prior engagement efforts and project memoranda. The team reviewed each reference in context and assigned codes based on the substance of the feedback rather than the policy or program itself. For example, a response referencing the Corporate Activity Tax may have been coded under the broader theme of Business Climate while also receiving a subcode related to Oregon's tax structure. Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 4

Finally, the team analyzed the distribution of responses across categories and subcodes to identify recurring themes, patterns, and areas of stakeholder consensus. The findings presented in this appendix reflect the results of that analysis. Listening Sessions The listening session facilitator guide served as one mechanism for collecting stakeholder feedback from across the state and was publicly available on the Prosperity Council’s website. Like the survey, the guide was organized around three topic areas: Business Climate, Workforce, and Tools for Growth. It provided a standardized framework for convening and facilitating listening sessions, including facilitator responsibilities, key definitions, an overview of economic development, and a sample agenda. The sample agenda prompted discussion using questions aligned with the open-ended survey questions, as shown in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3. Listening Session Facilitation Discussion Questions What challenge would you like addressed in the Prosperity Council’s recommendations? Q1. What is the biggest barrier or friction point in this area? Q2. What solution or specific change would you recommend addressing this challenge? Q3. What would success look like in 2–3 years? Who has to act for this to happen? (i.e., the Legislature, local governments, employers, Q4. education/training partners, etc.) Which existing state programs and policies does Oregon have that you want to see continue? What Q5. programs or policies have been most useful for you? What promising models or effective best practices have you seen in other states that you’d like Q6. Oregon to emulate? The guide also directed facilitators to submit findings through a Google form, creating a consistent format for collecting and analyzing feedback across sessions. To make participation more accessible, report-outs were also accepted by email. Report-outs from the listening sessions were reviewed to identify suggestions, challenges, and recurring themes raised by participants. Each item was categorized using two complementary classification groups. The primary classification organizes input by five subject areas:

Reshaping Oregon’s role in economic development tools, incentives, and authority;
Examining and taking steps to reform Oregon’s tax structure;
Incentivizing a faster and more competitive permitting and regulatory environment;
Increasing the supply of development-ready land; and
Creating a more integrated workforce system while driving job growth in growing sectors. Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 5

Ideas that did not align with one of these five subject areas were categorized as “Other.” A second classification was added to align suggestions with the Council’s three focus areas: Business Climate, Workforce, and Tools for Growth. Because some ideas are related to more than one focus area, secondary focus areas were also noted where applicable. Within the five subject areas, two additional levels of sub- categories were developed to further distinguish patterns in the ideas and challenges raised through the listening sessions. After categorizing all suggestions, the project team reviewed each subject area to identify recurring themes and patterns. Suggestions raised by multiple sources were identified as broadly supported themes, while recurring suggestions with less frequent support were identified as additional perspectives. The team also identified competing perspectives when suggestions from multiple sources differed from or were in tension with a broadly supported theme. Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 6

Geographic Distribution: Survey Responses As shown in Exhibit 4, survey respondents represented all Oregon counties except Grant County. Responses were distributed across the entire state, with participation from every region, indicating a broad geographic reach. However, response rates varied across Oregon, with some regions seeing substantially higher participation than others. As a result, the perspectives captured through the survey may not fully reflect the views and experiences of all residents across the state's geographic catchment area. Exhibit 4. Geographic Distribution of Survey Respondents Limitations The findings presented in this report should be interpreted within the context of several limitations associated with the public engagement process. The public engagement process was conducted within a relatively compressed project timeline. The survey was available for a limited period, which may have reduced opportunities for participation among individuals who became aware of it after it closed or were unable to participate during the engagement window. Consequently, some community members who Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 7

wished to provide input may not have had an opportunity to do so. Listening sessions and other free-form feedback avenues experienced similar deadlines that may have hampered participation. The forms of engagement discussed here were available primarily through online channels and outreach networks. While these methods helped broaden statewide participation, they may have created barriers for individuals with limited access to internet-connected devices or other means of gaining access to these opportunities. As a result, certain populations may be underrepresented in the survey findings. These limitations are common in voluntary public engagement efforts and suggest that the findings should be viewed as informative of community perspectives rather than fully representative of all Oregon residents. The engagement process was designed to gather input from a broad cross-section of stakeholders; however, it does not constitute a comprehensive or statistically representative assessment of public opinion across the entire state. Key findings presented were developed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding approaches. Deductive coding allowed the analysis team to organize responses around predefined topics and project objectives, while inductive coding enabled the identification of themes that emerged directly from participant feedback. Although this approach provides a structured yet flexible framework for analysis, qualitative coding inherently involves the researcher's interpretation. As a result, themes reflect the most prevalent patterns observed in the data but may not capture all nuances or perspectives expressed by participants. Key Findings across Engagements

Reshape Oregon's role in economic development tools, incentives, and » Broadly supported themes reflect the most frequent responses, typically authority representing a majority or near-majority. Oregonians seek to reform current economic development » Additional perspectives reflect recurring tools and incentives. They note that existing structures don’t but less dominant perspectives. always work well for rural areas and contribute to uneven » Competing perspectives reflect differing business growth and success. Alongside this, feedback or opposing viewpoints on a given issue, centered around the need to develop coordinated strategies highlighting areas of divergence in throughout state agencies and systems to incentivize respondents’ input. investment, convey business-friendly practices, and assist businesses that are already in the state. Broadly supported themes: ● Transform Business Oregon: Multiple sources suggest that Oregon could benefit from a more proactive and coordinated economic development model and encourage structural reforms informed by peer states (Arizona Commerce Authority cited repeatedly). Specific suggestions include an independent organizational review, a coordinated business recruitment plan with key performance indicators, and restoring the agency to its statutory focus on business development rather than functioning primarily as an infrastructure finance authority. Several sources also call for Appendix A. Prosperity Council Engagement Report ú June 2026 8

Parent: Oregon Prosperity Council Report — June 2026 · PDF: pp. 34-42