---
kind: section
source_pdf: oregon-prosperity-council-report-june-2026.pdf
fingerprint: 8ac9aef8ca1b
page_range: [173, 184]
breadcrumb: ["Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback", "12. Lois Cho, CHO Wines (Governor's Prosperity Council member)"]
source_links:
  pdf: "https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=173"
  raw_pages:
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0173.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0174.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0175.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0176.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0177.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0178.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0179.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0180.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0181.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0182.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0183.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0184.txt"
---

# 12. Lois Cho, CHO Wines (Governor's Prosperity Council member)

<!-- enrich:begin -->

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

Lois Cho, CEO of CHO Wines and Governor's Prosperity Council member, synthesizes stakeholder feedback from wine country, agriculture, and economic development leaders. She argues Oregon's economic challenges stem primarily from fragmentation and weak coordination across state agencies, universities, and regional partners—not lack of assets or programs. Her five main recommendations focus on better utilizing existing structures (Economic Development Organizations, universities, Regional Solutions Department) and improving coordination, transparency, and regulatory predictability. A recurring theme: Oregon needs stronger alignment and execution of existing initiatives, with particular emphasis on workforce development, land-use regulatory clarity, and statewide marketing coordination.

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

- Stakeholder survey identified regulatory complexity, permitting challenges, marketing support needs, capital access, and workforce/housing affordability as primary concerns for wine and agricultural businesses. ([p. 174](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=174))
- Structural fragmentation: Oregon operates many agencies and programs across economic development, tourism, and agriculture in parallel rather than in an integrated manner. ([p. 175](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=175))
- Recommendation to utilize existing nonprofit EDOs (SEDCOR, EDCO, Greater Portland Inc., SOREDI) and their direct business relationships rather than creating parallel state structures. ([p. 175](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=175))
- Regional Solutions Department was historically effective at resolving interagency conflicts but has shifted toward infrastructure projects, reducing its role in addressing regulatory bottlenecks. ([p. 176](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=176))
- Oregon State University has generated nearly 200 startups since 2013 that attracted significant private investment, demonstrating research institutions' economic development potential. ([p. 177](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=177))
- Land-use framework successfully preserves farmland but creates permitting delays and litigation risk for agritourism and rural hospitality businesses seeking revenue diversification. ([p. 177](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=177))
- Workforce challenges include rising rural housing costs, seasonal labor availability, wage pressures, and uncertainty from immigration and labor policies. ([p. 177](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=177))
- Five main recommendations: improve coordination via existing structures, increase outcome transparency, prioritize workforce and housing solutions, strengthen marketing alignment, and improve regulatory predictability. ([p. 179](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=179))
- Core insight: Oregon's challenges are not due to lack of assets or talent, but to fragmentation, rising costs, and difficulty translating plans into coordinated action. ([p. 180](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=180))

Amounts: nearly 200 startups · Dates/FTE: February 17, 2026 · 2013 · Programs: Rural Tax Exemption Program · Regional Innovation Hubs Program · House Bill 4153 · Parties: Lois Cho · CHO Wines · Governor's Prosperity Council · Oregon Wine Board

<!-- enrich:end -->

> **Source:** PDF [pp. 173-184](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=173) · raw: [173](../../.extracted/pages/page-0173.txt) · [174](../../.extracted/pages/page-0174.txt) · [175](../../.extracted/pages/page-0175.txt) · [176](../../.extracted/pages/page-0176.txt) · [177](../../.extracted/pages/page-0177.txt) · [178](../../.extracted/pages/page-0178.txt) · [179](../../.extracted/pages/page-0179.txt) · [180](../../.extracted/pages/page-0180.txt) · [181](../../.extracted/pages/page-0181.txt) · [182](../../.extracted/pages/page-0182.txt) · [183](../../.extracted/pages/page-0183.txt) · [184](../../.extracted/pages/page-0184.txt)

Breadcrumb: Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback > 12. Lois Cho, CHO Wines (Governor's Prosperity Council member)

---
Governor’s Prosperity Council
Lois Cho’s Contributions for Meeting #2
February 17, 2026
Prepared by Lois Cho, Co-Founder & CEO of CHO Wines
Member, Governor’s Prosperity Council
This document is a working summary prepared for internal use only. It captures initial discussion
themes, questions, and hypotheses from initial discussions with key stakeholders interpreted by
Council member Lois Cho and does not represent final positions, recommendations, or policy
direction.
Please do not distribute externally or attribute specific viewpoints, as the Council is still in an
active listening and evaluation phase.

Over the past month, I conducted a series of meetings and outreach efforts to gather
input from industry and economic development stakeholders. This included meetings with the
executive directors of the Oregon Wine Board, Willamette Valley Wineries Association, and
Oregon Winegrowers Association; a presentation at the WVWA Annual Member Meeting;
discussions with business owners at the Oregon Wine Symposium; and a distributed survey.
Additional conversations were held with developers, small business owners, corporate wineries,
legislators, lobbyists, and economic development organizations, as well as input from Oregon
State University. The following section summarizes the themes that emerged from this outreach.
1. Current State: Oregon’s Economic Context
Several stakeholders referenced broader economic indicators, including measures such as the
Oregon Business Index and related analyses, which suggest that Oregon is facing challenges
across multiple measures of competitiveness. Growth across major industry sectors appears
uneven, and healthcare remains one of the few sectors consistently expanding, largely driven
by demographic trends such as an aging population. Some participants noted that Oregon’s
largest employers have remained concentrated among a relatively small number of
organizations, and that the state has seen limited emergence of new large-scale industry
sectors contributing to broad-based economic growth.
There is also concern about fiscal constraints at the state level and uncertainty about how
long-term economic development strategies will be funded. Some stakeholders observed that
while regulatory streamlining and sector-specific initiatives are valuable, broader economic
conditions (particularly job creation, wage growth, and disposable income) ultimately drive
demand across many industries, including wine, agriculture, and hospitality. From this
perspective, policies that strengthen overall economic health may have the most significant
long-term impact on rural industries.
Stakeholders described differing perspectives regarding rural economic development and
land use. Some emphasized the importance of preserving high-value farmland and
limiting commercial uses in rural areas, consistent with Oregon’s longstanding land-use
framework. Others noted that rising costs, infrastructure limitations, and changing market
conditions are creating pressure for agricultural businesses to diversify revenue through
agritourism, direct sales, or limited hospitality uses. These perspectives reflect an ongoing
effort to balance preservation with economic viability.
2. Observations from Wine Country Survey Responses
Survey responses from winery operators and growers reveal a consistent set of operational and
structural concerns. In the near term, respondents most frequently cited regulatory complexity,
permitting challenges, and the need for increased marketing support to strengthen awareness of
Oregon wine in competitive markets. Access to capital, grants, and financing tools was also
identified as an area where businesses would benefit from additional support.
Looking further ahead, respondents emphasized the importance of tax policy, incentives,
workforce development, and research and development. Workforce challenges were a recurring
theme, particularly related to housing affordability, seasonal labor availability, and rising wage
pressures. Some respondents also noted that immigration policy and labor regulations affect

their ability to plan and operate effectively, especially in sectors where work is seasonal and
time-sensitive.
Businesses also reported that information about available programs, grants, and resources is
often fragmented or difficult to navigate. This creates barriers to participation even when
programs exist, and some suggested that improving communication and coordination could
increase the effectiveness of existing initiatives without requiring significant new funding.
3. Structural Challenges Identified Across Discussions
Across multiple conversations, stakeholders described a broader structural challenge related to
fragmentation. Oregon has many agencies, boards, and organizations working toward economic
development, tourism promotion, agricultural support, and marketing, but coordination among
these entities is not always clear. This fragmentation can result in overlapping efforts,
inconsistent messaging, and reduced efficiency in how funds and programs are deployed.
This issue is not limited to a single sector. Participants noted that agriculture, tourism, and
economic development programs often operate in parallel rather than in an integrated manner,
which can make it difficult to implement cohesive strategies or measure statewide outcomes.
While Oregon has strong institutions and programs, stakeholders frequently expressed the view
that alignment and execution may be as important as additional funding.
Stakeholders described differing perspectives regarding rural economic development and
land use. Some emphasized the importance of preserving high-value farmland and
limiting commercial uses in rural areas, consistent with Oregon’s longstanding land-use
framework. Others noted that rising costs, infrastructure limitations, and changing market
conditions are creating pressure for agricultural businesses to diversify revenue through
agritourism, direct sales, or limited hospitality uses. These perspectives reflect an ongoing
effort to balance preservation with economic viability.
Recent legislative proposals, including House Bill 4153, illustrate the ongoing debate
about how to balance farmland protection with the need for agricultural businesses to
diversify through retail, agritourism, and value-added activities.
Role of Economic Development Organizations (EDOs)
● Regional Economic Development Organizations such as SEDCOR, EDCO, Greater
Portland Inc., and SOREDI already operate extensive business-support networks.
● These organizations often have direct relationships with employers, entrepreneurs, and
investors and can respond more flexibly than state agencies in certain circumstances.
● Some stakeholders suggested that the state could more effectively utilize existing
nonprofit EDO networks rather than developing parallel structures.
● EDOs frequently partner with the Regional Solutions Department and local jurisdictions
to assist businesses navigating permitting, infrastructure, and financing.

There was also discussion about whether the state might benefit from formally designating
regional EDO partners in certain initiatives, particularly where existing networks and
relationships already support economic development activities.
Examples of Programs and Partnerships
Examples discussed included:
● The Rural Tax Exemption Program, which can support major facility or equipment
upgrades.
● The Regional Innovation Hubs Program, administered by Business Oregon, which
supports entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems.
○ Some organizations that do not qualify directly for state funding have partnered
with affiliated nonprofits to secure philanthropic support.
● Programs supporting:
○ Entrepreneurial development
○ Agricultural technology initiatives
○ Workforce housing coalitions
○ Small infrastructure projects such as sidewalks and accessibility improvements
○ Employer support initiatives, including childcare access
Stakeholders noted that partnerships with universities, growers, and startups are already
occurring in some regions, including on-farm trials and applied innovation projects.
Coordination Between State Agencies and Regional Partners
Several observations were made regarding coordination:
● Business Oregon is viewed by some stakeholders as effective in administering incentive
and infrastructure programs but not positioned to address regulatory challenges directly.
● The Regional Solutions Department was described as historically effective in
convening agencies to resolve interagency conflicts, particularly where businesses faced
conflicting requirements from multiple regulators.
● Some stakeholders expressed the view that this coordination function has shifted in
recent years toward infrastructure-focused projects, reducing its role in resolving
regulatory bottlenecks affecting private-sector investment.

● There was discussion about whether Regional Solutions coordinators or similar
mechanisms could be more actively utilized to help address complex permitting
challenges.
Several stakeholders, including higher education partners, emphasized that Oregon’s challenge
is less about identifying priorities and more about aligning institutions, agencies, and regional
partners around shared goals and execution. Having the universities at this table could also be
a part of the solution.
Universities also play a role in translating research into companies and jobs, supporting applied
research, startup formation, and industry partnerships. Since 2013, Oregon State University
alone has generated nearly 200 startups that have attracted significant private investment,
demonstrating the potential of research institutions as economic development partners.
4. Land Use and Regulatory Complexity
Land use policy emerged as one of the most complex and sensitive topics in discussions. Many
stakeholders acknowledged that Oregon’s land use framework has played a significant role in
preserving farmland and preventing sprawl, outcomes that are widely valued by agricultural
producers. At the same time, businesses involved in agritourism and rural hospitality reported
challenges related to permitting, county-level interpretation of rules, and litigation risk, all of
which can introduce uncertainty and delay investment.
Some stakeholders also noted that updating soil classifications or land-use designations can be
costly and time-consuming, creating barriers to adaptive land management. Preservation
advocates, however, emphasized that protecting high-value farmland remains essential to
maintaining Oregon’s agricultural economy over the long term, and that certain types of
development (particularly large-scale or resort-style projects) raise legitimate concerns about
cumulative impacts.
These differing perspectives reflect a shared interest in maintaining a strong agricultural base,
but differing views on how to balance preservation with economic diversification in rural areas.
5. Workforce and Cost Pressures
Workforce issues were consistently identified as a major constraint across industries. Rising
housing costs in rural communities make it difficult for workers to live near employment centers,
and businesses report ongoing challenges in recruiting and retaining staff. Seasonal industries,
including agriculture and hospitality, face additional complexity because labor demand fluctuates
significantly throughout the year.
Some stakeholders expressed concern that certain labor policies do not fully account for the
seasonal and time-sensitive nature of agricultural work, while others emphasized the
importance of maintaining worker protections and fair compensation. In addition to labor costs,
businesses also cited rising input costs, transportation expenses, and utilities as contributing to
financial pressure, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Higher education institutions, including Oregon State University, identified workforce
development and talent pipelines as central to long-term economic competitiveness.
Universities play a significant role in aligning degree programs, credentials, and applied learning
with sector needs and regional workforce demands, particularly through partnerships with
employers and community colleges.
Agricultural employers and processors noted that workforce availability and cost pressures
remain significant challenges. Seasonal production cycles, labor shortages, and increasing
wage and overtime requirements can create operational constraints, particularly in
labor-intensive sectors such as specialty crops and winegrape production. Some stakeholders
also noted that mechanization and innovation may play a growing role in addressing long-term
labor constraints.
6. Marketing and Tourism Coordination
Marketing and tourism coordination emerged as another area of concern. Oregon’s food,
beverage, wine, and agricultural sectors are widely recognized as significant contributors to the
state’s economy and identity, yet stakeholders often described marketing efforts as fragmented
across regions, organizations, and agencies. This fragmentation can make it difficult to present
a unified statewide narrative, particularly in national or international markets.
Several participants compared Oregon’s approach to that of other states with well-known wine
regions, where statewide branding and coordinated marketing strategies are more centralized,
and regional differentiation occurs within a broader framework. Stakeholders emphasized that
stronger alignment does not necessarily require new organizations or funding, but may benefit
from clearer roles, shared priorities, and more consistent messaging across existing institutions.
7. Cautious Recommendations
Based on discussions with industry stakeholders, regional economic development organizations
(including insights shared by Abisha Romano of SEDCOR) and survey responses, several
measured recommendations emerge. These reflect common themes around coordination,
workforce, marketing, and regulatory predictability, while recognizing fiscal and structural
constraints.
1. Improve Coordination Using Existing Structures
● Strengthen alignment between agencies already in place, including economic
development, workforce, tourism, and regulatory agencies
● Clarify roles and communication channels among state agencies, regional economic
development organizations, and industry groups
● Better utilize existing regional networks, including nonprofit Economic Development
Organizations.
● Reduce duplication of efforts and improve information-sharing across agencies and
partners

2. Increase Transparency and Outcome Reporting
● Publish clear annual metrics for publicly funded programs where feasible
● Link funding to measurable outcomes when appropriate
● Improve visibility into how existing programs, grants, and incentives are deployed and
evaluated
3. Prioritize Workforce and Housing Solutions
● Support housing development in rural employment centers
● Explore policies tailored to seasonal and agricultural workforce needs
● Strengthen partnerships among workforce agencies, employers, and regional
organizations to improve access to training and employment pathways
4. Strengthen Marketing and Branding Alignment
● Develop a clearer statewide narrative for Oregon’s food, beverage, and agricultural
sectors
● Encourage collaboration across regions, industries, and marketing organizations. Just as
the Regional Solutions Department has historically served a coordinating role across
agencies, consideration could be given to a similar statewide coordinating function within
Business Oregon, with representation from regional visitor associations and industry
partners, structured in a way that reflects economic impact and regional contributions.
Use this pathway to more effectively disseminate information about available
opportunities, programs, and incentives to business owners.
● Improve coordination among agencies and partners involved in tourism, agriculture, and
regional marketing efforts
5. Improve Regulatory Predictability and Problem-Solving
● Provide clearer guidance early in permitting and regulatory processes
● Improve consistency across counties and agencies where possible
● Continue exploring ways to strengthen interagency coordination to help resolve complex
permitting or infrastructure challenges affecting businesses
● Emphasize practical problem-solving and continuous improvement in regulatory
processes, particularly where multiple agencies are involved

8. Concluding Observation
A theme repeated in many conversations was that Oregon’s economic challenges are not due to
a lack of assets or talent, but to fragmentation, rising costs, and difficulty translating plans into
coordinated action. Stakeholders across industries expressed appreciation for many existing
programs and institutions, while also noting that outcomes may be improved through stronger
alignment and execution.
The opportunity ahead may lie less in creating new programs and more in strengthening:
● Alignment
● Clarity
● Accountability
● Execution
Pillar Administrative Actions 2027 Legislative Structural Challenges
(Short-Term) Proposals (2–5 Years)
(Medium-Term)
Business Executive orders on Tax structure Land-use reform;
Climate permitting timelines; adjustments; incentive zoning flexibility;
agency coordination; expansion; R&D long-term tax
regulatory clarity credits modernization
Workforce Workforce training Investment in training Education-to-employm
alignment; credential pipelines; incentives for ent alignment; regional
portability; agency skilled worker talent ecosystems
streamlining attraction
Tools for Inventory and optimize Scaled incentive Long-term funding
Growth existing programs; faster programs; capital models; innovation
deployment of grants access for mid-sized infrastructure
firms
Business Climate Workforce Tools for Growth
Administrative Improve interagency Improve alignment Inventory and
Actions (Short-Term) coordination and between workforce improve coordination
communication. programs and of existing grants,
industry needs loans, and incentive

Provide clearer Streamline access to programs
permitting guidance training and
and timelines workforce resources Accelerate
deployment timelines
Improve consistency Strengthen for funding programs
in regulatory coordination among where feasible
interpretation across workforce agencies,
jurisdictions employers, regional Improve
partners and communication of
Better utilize regional universities. funding opportunities
Economic to businesses
Development Improve
Organizations dissemination of Strengthen
(EDOs) to connect information about partnerships with
businesses with training and regional Economic
programs and workforce support Development
incentives. programs Organizations,
DMOs, and
Explore universities
reprioritization of the
Regional Solutions
Department for the
above.
Improve visibility and
accessibility of
existing grants, loans,
and technical
assistance via
Business Oregon.
Involve
representation of
different EDOs and
DMOs within
Business Oregon.
2027 Legislative Review tax Invest in workforce
Proposals thresholds and training pipelines Expand access to
(Medium-Term) structures affecting aligned with key capital and financing
small and mid-sized industries and tools, particularly for
businesses universities. mid-sized firms
Expand or refine Support employer-led Support regional
incentive programs to training, innovation initiatives
support business apprenticeships, and and applied research
expansion and credentialing partnerships
investment programs.
Consider scaled
Support research, Explore incentives to incentive programs

development, and attract and retain that support business
applied innovation workers in rural expansion and
partnerships communities modernization
Consider policies that
improve regulatory
predictability for
business
development
Structural Challenges Improve long-term Expand housing Develop more stable,
(2-5 Years) clarity and availability in rural long-term funding
predictability in employment centers models for economic
land-use and and prioritize development
permitting processes permitting. programs.
while maintaining
farmland protections. Strengthen Strengthen
education-to-employ innovation
Invest in core ment pathways and infrastructure and
infrastructure (water, regional talent applied research
wastewater, pipelines. partnerships.
transportation,
utilities) needed to Address long-term Prioritize
support economic workforce infrastructure and
growth, particularly in participation programs that
key sector areas. challenges, including support business
transportation, expansion and job
Modernize economic childcare, and creation.
development demographic shifts.
incentives and
improve coordination
across agencies and
regions.

---

Parent: [Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback](./INDEX.md) · PDF: [pp. 173-184](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=173)