---
kind: section
source_pdf: oregon-prosperity-council-report-june-2026.pdf
fingerprint: 8ac9aef8ca1b
page_range: [34, 42]
breadcrumb: ["Appendix A: Prosperity Council Engagement Report"]
source_links:
  pdf: "https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=34"
  raw_pages:
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0034.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0035.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0036.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0037.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0038.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0039.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0040.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0041.txt"
    - "../.extracted/pages/page-0042.txt"
---

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

<!-- enrich:begin -->

## TL;DR  *(generated · confidence: high)*

This appendix describes the Prosperity Council's engagement process to gather stakeholder input on Oregon's economic competitiveness. Between February and May 2026, the Council conducted a public survey (2,833 responses), facilitated 60+ listening sessions across 11 regions, and collected 45+ letters and memoranda from diverse stakeholders. Respondents identified five priorities: reforming economic development tools, examining tax structure, accelerating permitting, increasing development-ready land, and integrating workforce systems. The analysis acknowledged limitations including compressed timelines, digital-access barriers, and non-representative sampling.

**Key points** *(each cites a PDF page)*:

- Survey conducted February 6 through March 25, 2026, receiving 2,833 responses; 1,039 included written feedback and were analyzed, 1,794 excluded ([p. 36](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=36))
- More than 60 listening sessions held in over 25 locations across all 11 Oregon economic development regions between February 2 and May 22, 2026 ([p. 36](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=36))
- More than 45 letters and memoranda received from major employers, statewide business associations, universities, venture capital organizations, and advocacy groups ([p. 37](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=37))
- Survey respondents represented all Oregon counties except Grant County, with participation from every region; however, response rates varied across the state ([p. 41](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=41))
- Five subject areas identified from stakeholder feedback: reshaping economic development tools and incentives; examining tax structure; accelerating permitting and regulation; increasing supply of development-ready land; creating integrated workforce system ([p. 39](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=39))
- Analysis employed deductive and inductive coding approaches using Atlas.ti software to systematically code responses against predefined categories and identify emergent themes ([p. 38](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=38))
- Engagement conducted primarily through online channels and outreach networks; digital-access barriers may have excluded populations with limited internet access ([p. 42](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=42))
- Broadly supported theme: stakeholders advocate transforming Business Oregon with independent organizational review, coordinated business recruitment plan, and return to statutory focus on business development ([p. 42](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=42))

Amounts: 2,833 · 1,039 · 1,794 · 60 · 25 · 11 · 45 · Dates/FTE: February 6, 2026 · March 25, 2026 · February 2, 2026 · May 22, 2026 · Programs: Prosperity Roadmap · Business Oregon · Arizona Commerce Authority · Parties: Oregon Prosperity Council · Governor Tina Kotek · ECOnorthwest · Gard Communications

<!-- enrich:end -->

> **Source:** PDF [pp. 34-42](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=34) · raw: [34](../.extracted/pages/page-0034.txt) · [35](../.extracted/pages/page-0035.txt) · [36](../.extracted/pages/page-0036.txt) · [37](../.extracted/pages/page-0037.txt) · [38](../.extracted/pages/page-0038.txt) · [39](../.extracted/pages/page-0039.txt) · [40](../.extracted/pages/page-0040.txt) · [41](../.extracted/pages/page-0041.txt) · [42](../.extracted/pages/page-0042.txt)

Breadcrumb: Appendix A: Prosperity Council Engagement Report

---
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:
1. Reshaping Oregon’s role in economic development tools, incentives, and authority;
2. Examining and taking steps to reform Oregon’s tax structure;
3. Incentivizing a faster and more competitive permitting and regulatory environment;
4. Increasing the supply of development-ready land; and
5. 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
1. 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](./INDEX.md) · PDF: [pp. 34-42](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=34)