Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/21/2014 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate ITEM TITLE: COUNCIL MINUTES ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, approval of the attached minutes. ISSUE STATEMENT: The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes: a) March 24, 2014 – Work Session b) April 1, 2014 – Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing c) April 7, 2014 – Work Session d) April 7, 2014 – Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 24, 2014 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorneys Mary Bridget Smith and Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused). Mayor Lundberg welcomed a group of Boy Scouts from Troup 60 who were attending the meeting in order to receive a merit badge. The boys introduced themselves. 1. Library Advisory Board Candidate Interview. Library Director Rob Everett presented the staff report on this item. In response to a January 2014 posting, the Library Advisory Board received one application to fill the seat of departing Board member, Jody Anderson. The Board interviewed candidate Dwight Dzierzek at its March 4, 2014 meeting and is forwarding its recommendation to Council to interview him as a finalist for the position. Mr. Dzierzek is a 25 year resident of Springfield and works in banking for Northwest Community Credit Union. He lives in Ward 4 of the city and in the past he has served as a member of the City’s Budget Committee. He is actively involved in his community as a board member of the March of Dimes, Forests Today & Forever, and the Springfield Chamber of Commerce Greeters. The Library Advisory Board believes this candidate is eligible and qualified to serve on the board. Council is requested to review the candidate’s application and interview him prior to appointing him to the Board. Council selected the questions they would ask of Mr. Dzierzek. They introduced themselves to Mr. Dzierzek and conducted the interview with the following questions: 1. Please tell us why you are interested in serving on the Library Board? (Mayor Lundberg) 2. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a Library Board member. (Councilor VanGordon) 3. What do you see as the Library’s role in the community? (Councilor Ralston) 4. Are there any services or enhancements that you would like to see the Library provide? (Councilor Woodrow) 5. What initiatives are you interested in pursuing as a Library Board member? (Councilor Moore) City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 2 6. Given your other work & community commitments will you be able to actively serve on the Library Board as well? (Councilor Brew) 7. Is there anything further you would like to tell us or do you have any questions that we might answer? (Mayor Lundberg) Council agreed to appoint Mr. Dzierzek to the Library Board during the April 7, 2014 regular meeting. Mr. Everett said he would notify Mr. Dzierzek. Mayor Lundberg reviewed the time frames of each agenda item for those that wanted to attend for a particular subject. 2. Downtown Parking Advisory Committee Applicant Interviews. Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield is looking to fill positions on a newly formed Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. Between the initial advertisement for available positions on February 25th and the final date to submit applications, March 14th, staff received a total of eight applications, all of which appear to meet the eligibility requirements as outlined in the application. Staff is requesting Council interview applicants and recommend preferred candidates for appointment to the Committee. Staff is looking for a committee of seven members. The Committee’s formation stems from the recommendation included in the 2010 adopted Downtown Parking Plan (Rick Williams, 2010) to assure representation of affected private and public constituents from within the community to inform decision-makers. Committee members will be tasked with, among other related topics; • Assisting City staff in the implementation of the adopted Downtown Parking Management Plan. • Reviewing parking issues anticipated to develop over time. • Advising City Council and the Springfield Economic Development Agency on strategy implementation based on the guiding principles for parking management, as identified in the adopted Downtown Parking Management Plan. Staff believes, upon first review, all candidates included here are eligible to serve on the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. Council is requested to review each candidate’s application, interview them, and recommend applicants for appointment to the seven member Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. Councilor Ralston asked why they were interviewing every member. Mayor Lundberg said because this was a new committee, Council preferred to interview all applicants. Council selected the questions they would be asking of each candidate. They introduced themselves and conducted the interviews with the following questions: 1. Please tell us why you are interested in serving on the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. (Councilor Ralston) City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 3 2. What do you see as the role of parking enforcement in Downtown? (Councilor Woodrow) 3. Is there anything else you would like to share with us related to your desire to serve on the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee? (Councilor Moore) 4. Do you have any questions of the City Council? (Mayor Lundberg) Mayor Lundberg said Council needed to discuss options since one of the applicants was not able to attend tonight’s meeting to be interview. Council decided to wait to interview the final candidate on April 7 and make their final decision at that time. Ms. Griesel said she would notify the applicants. 3. NEDCO Downtown Mobile Food Vendor Program. Housing Program Analyst Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. There were two parts to the Food Cart issue for the City of Springfield. This part dealt with city owned streets and property in downtown, and property owned by NEDCO. It was proposed that NEDCO would act as the manager of this part of the Food Cart program. A map of the coverage area was included in the agenda packet. The other part of the Food Cart program was on private property and fell under the Transient Merchant ordinance. Mr. Ko referred to the summary sheet prepared by NEDCO which was included in the agenda packet, as well as the draft set of guidelines for this program. The draft guidelines had been reviewed by staff and were currently under review by the City Attorney’s office. Mr. Ko introduced Claire Carpenter- Seguin, Executive Director of NEDCO and Jim McCugh the new Main Street Manager from Helena, Montana. Councilor Woodrow asked what constituted a specific permitted location. Mr. Ko said the City and NEDCO had identified areas that did not conflict with existing brick and mortar, or food cart businesses. NEDCO would ask the food cart vendors where they would like to locate and then be very strategic about where food carts would be placed. Councilor Woodrow asked if a maximum number of food carts allowed had been identified. Dave Johnson from NEDCO said they had been looking more at the goal of how many they wanted. Councilor Woodrow asked if food cart vendors could provide seating. Mr. Ko said they could as long as they did not impede walkways. Councilor Woodrow said she saw in the draft that local food and local products would be encouraged. She liked that, but didn’t want that to be a deciding factor or a negative against someone as it could be cost prohibitive. Mr. Johnson said this program will be cooperating with other programs at NEDCO facilitating access to the local food sources because of a network of farmers. The guidelines did not require that sourcing, but it was encouraged and NEDCO provided the support. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 4 Councilor VanGordon referred to page 5 of the guidelines regarding the requirement for food cart vendors to have a valid food handler’s card, a Lane County Environmental Health Mobile Food Unit license, and be at least 16 years old. He asked if those three were compatible. Mr. Johnson said they were all compatible, although didn’t know if they could acquire a food vending license if under the age of 16. Those requirements also pertained to employees. Councilor VanGordon asked if the guidelines had been reviewed with any of the brick and mortar restaurants or vendors downtown. Mr. Johnson said they had not. Councilor VanGordon asked if that was planned. Mr. Johnson said that was the plan. There had been outreach to the brick and mortar businesses, but the guidelines were fairly recent. Councilor VanGordon said that would be very important due to earlier concerns voiced by downtown businesses. It would be beneficial to allow them to review and comment on the guidelines early in the process so any concerns could be addressed. He asked about language he had seen about not wanting businesses providing the same services near each other. He asked how that would be administered. Mr. Johnson said they intended to work with potential vendors and clients to be collaborative. They were looking at having conversation with those businesses that were doing some market analysis. Part of that conversation would include where they would fit into the landscape of the area. When they get approached by a vendor, they would take the information about what they want to serve and where and talk with the existing businesses. They were looking for a very collaborative process. Councilor VanGordon asked if they had any vendors signed up yet. Mr. Johnson said they had five different food truck vendors in a pilot program at the Farmer’s Market. He had heard from about 30-40 interested businesses in the surrounding region that had either heard about the program or were interested in siting, although may not be ready to put a cart downtown. Councilor VanGordon asked if the food vendors would have the opportunity to be involved in any other services offered by NEDCO. Mr. Johnson said they could, but it was not mandatory. They were working with the staff to hone services specifically for this type of business. Councilor VanGordon said he was looking forward to this program getting started. Councilor Moore asked about people who might have other locations and want to just have a spot downtown a couple of days a week. She asked if that would be allowed. Mr. Johnson said vendors were to follow guidelines unless they sought approval from NEDCO. When launching the program, they would have some flexibility regarding days and hours. He would like to have conversations with the businesses to determine where to site them, but what days and hours. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg said there were places that stated ‘working on behalf’ of the city which caused her some concern. She asked who the vendors would call if they were unhappy about something regarding the program. There needed to be language in the guidelines about recourse for both vendors and brick and mortar businesses. Some of the wording was ambiguous such as “aesthetically pleasing” and “family friendly”. She felt those needed definitions. Outreach to the brick and mortar businesses was critically important. She was supportive of program, but wanted to have the outreach. She asked if there was a cap on the number of vendors that would be allowed. There needed to be more clarity on the seating, and better definitions regarding ‘locally grown’. She wanted to make sure the City Attorneys were involved in some of the language included. She asked about the process between NEDCO and the City. Councilor Brew asked if there would be a preference given to SPROUT vendors over other vendors. He asked how decisions were made and how disputes would be handled. Mr. Johnson said any business that came into the program would be considered a SPROUT business. In terms of direct competition, he would handle that the way he handled the Farmer’s Market vendors, which included seniority as a factor. When vendors had the same type of offering, they would work to schedule those businesses around each other. He provided an example. Because they were working specifically with food truck vendors to identify their location and hours of service, they had some flexibility for people to work around each other. Mayor Lundberg referred to a recent presentation by Gil Penalosa who had been all over the world and had seen food carts and vendor carts. He had several suggestions around expectations from those vendors such as: lighting on the carts for a set amount of time; responsibility for garbage; and responsibility for policing. She suggested they look at that video which was available online. The whole premise was that there were a lot of things that could be done, that didn’t cost a lot of money, but had a huge impact. The carts would be responsible for the atmosphere. She would like to incorporate some of his approach in this program if possible. Councilor Ralston asked if some of the carts would be tied to electricity. Mr. Johnson said that wasn’t specifically addressed, but some food truck owners had their own onboard set ups. Councilor Ralston said he didn’t want generators making a lot of noise. Councilor Moore asked about the relationship between the City and SPROUT in regards to this program and asked that it be clearly defined. She asked how it was different from other businesses. Mr. Ko said they were suggesting that once the guidelines were finalized, the City and NEDCO would enter into an agreement regarding responsibilities and roles of each. That would be the second part to the guidelines. The guidelines were the communications from NEDCO to the vendors, but the agreement would be between the City and NEDCO. Mayor Lundberg asked if the next steps would be for the council to see the guidelines again. Yes. Ms. Carpenter-Seguin identified Jim McHugh, the new Downtown Manager and Dave Johnson, the Market Manager at SPROUT. Mr. Johnson had compiled the work and had worked hard to be thoughtful about models to follow and what to include. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 6 Councilor Woodrow said she appreciated that he had framed the guidelines for Springfield. Mr. Johnson said much of what he developed came from talking with current businesses and users in Eugene and then honing that into what would work in Springfield. 4. Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Facilities (Dispensaries). Assistant City Attorney Lauren King and Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. The 2013 Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3460, directing the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to establish and regulate a medical marijuana facility (dispensary) registration system. Under that law, registered medical marijuana dispensaries are authorized to sell medical marijuana beginning March 1, 2014. On March 21, 2014 the OHA started issuing the first batch of facility registrations, although that information is confidential unless the applicant releases their names. The media printed that eight registrations had been released, although it was not known where they were located, and that six dispensaries had applied for application in Springfield. Ms. King said under the law, dispensaries can be located in areas zoned commercial/industrial mixed-use, but can’t be located at the same location as a grow site, within 1000 feet of a school, or within 1000 feet of another facility. Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan and staff prepared a map showing those restrictions applied and the areas remaining where a facility could locate. Ms. King noted that the 2014 Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1531. SB 1531 provides that cities may only impose “reasonable regulations” on the hours of operation; limitations on where the facility may be located in the authorized zones; and reasonable conditions on the manner in which a facility may dispense medical marijuana. Additionally, SB 1531 permits local governments to adopt an ordinance declaring a moratorium on the operation of registered medical marijuana dispensaries until May 1, 2015. The moratorium must be adopted by May 1, 2014. If the City passed a moratorium, dispensaries that had received their license could get a full refund, but could not operate a facility. Ms. King said medical marijuana dispensaries were not a use that was listed in Springfield’s Development Code. Mr. Donovan said the State House of Representatives was in committee up until the go-live date. Immediately upon receiving the State’s final rules, staff created a public handout for the general public and those that had expressed interest. Staff viewed this as a new use which meant it had to go through zoning approval. That was outlined in the information provided to the public. Councilor Brew asked if the legislations specifying zoning for permitted locations pre-empted the City’s ability to specify zoning requirements. Ms. King said that was something the City would want to look at more under the “Reasonable Regulations”. The time, place, and manner requirement was complicated. Staff and the City Attorneys had discussed mixed-use zones, of which the City has eight. All of those had residential as a primary or secondary use. They would want to look at that more closely and how it could fit within the “Reasonable Regulations”. There were a lot of new changes that happened quickly from the State. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Towery said in many communities, dispensaries may be classified as a specialty retail use. Some communities didn’t allow specialty retail to occur in certain zones, such as industrial. Those were the type of issues communities would sort through during the course of a moratorium. Mr. Donovan said the statute listed mixed-use, but excluded residential uses. Residential uses did occur in all of the mixed-uses. It would be reasonable to strongly consider whether or not a dispensary was allowed in a mixed-use area where residential was the primary use. Those were some of the things identified by staff when going through the statute. Councilor Moore said if regulations were set by the City, they could include hours of service and where they were located. She asked if there was anything else. Ms. King said they could also regulate the manner in which they dispense. Time, place and manner are usually associated with 1st Amendment rights and could be complicated. Staff and the City Attorney’s office wanted to be very thoughtful about those regulations. Councilor Ralston said he hadn’t heard good enough explanation of why they wanted to put a moratorium on something that could be a legal activity. Those applying for licenses would be at a competitive disadvantage from other communities and he didn’t want to create that environment. He asked why staff was suggesting the City enact a moratorium. Ms. King said from the City Attorney’s perspective as they worked with staff, they were looking at how to process applications, know where they were sited and if they were licensed. It was also a chance for Council to add more specific requirements and provide more clarification. Mr. Grimaldi said staff was presenting it as an option. Councilor Ralston said it felt like they were trying to find a way to say someone couldn’t develop here. He wanted to be open for business. Councilor Moore said she had received a number of emails from those that didn’t want the City to enact a moratorium. She would be interested in hearing from citizens in Springfield in a broader sense and perhaps some that might feel the City did need more time. She would like to have a public hearing. Ms. King said they would recommend a public hearing. If the City didn’t take action by May 1, there was no opportunity to do a moratorium. There could be some complications for those already issued a license by the OHA. Councilor Moore said if they enacted a moratorium, it could be less than one year or could be shortened at a later date. Ms. King said that was correct. Councilor VanGordon asked if the legislature would be bringing this issue up again in the 2015 legislation. Ms. King said part of this bill required the Senate and House Judiciary Committee as well as working committees to identify whether or not these were appropriate regulations or if cities should have more City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 8 authority. There was still more to come and was very fluid. They were also anticipating that recreational marijuana use could potentially be legalized by a vote in November. Councilor VanGordon said the City didn’t have a lot of planning framework in place right now. Mr. Donovan said it was fair to say because the City didn’t have dispensaries as a listed use. They would need to start by discussing whether or not the City wanted to follow just State requirements or enact reasonable local regulations. Staff would prepare that information for Council consideration. Councilor VanGordon said he agreed it was important to have a public hearing on this topic. He was interested in taking on a one-year moratorium. We want to be open for business, but it was hard to change regulations after businesses had been open, especially if it meant a move. This was a new industry and it was important to have a good understanding of the first steps so they did it right. He would be interested in looking at this again in eight or nine months as long they had conversations in between. It made sense to take advantage of the extra time to do it right. Councilor Woodrow agreed. She felt they were in a time squeeze because of the May 1 deadline to make a decision based on little information. She appreciated the emails received and the diligence and deliberation by those preparing to set up. That didn’t guaranteed that the next person who wanted to open a dispensary would have that same due diligence. She appreciated the work done so far by those operators, but they needed to stop and consider the zoning issues, time, place and manner. She wanted to make sure access didn’t get to teenagers or younger. She wanted a public hearing and to hear from everyone that wanted to speak. She was inclined to look at a moratorium for some amount of time. Councilor Brew said he didn’t feel he had enough information so it would be great to have a public hearing. It would be helpful to have a staff report at the public hearing listing the decisions needed to be made and the most expedient way to get there. Mayor Lundberg said she was not in favor of a moratorium. Those that wanted marijuana were getting it now; the City just wasn’t in the loop. This was the State’s effort to put us into the 21st Century and we needed to look at it seriously. There were people that were legitimate and would go to a medical marijuana dispensary that was legal, but would not get it otherwise even though they could benefit. A close friend of hers was dying of cancer, so she would like to see this move forward in some way to make this available for people who wanted this option. Someone that knew of her friend had offered the Mayor a way to get a card for her friend. That was the type of thing that was already happening. Dispensaries were legal, and there was likely going to be a referendum about recreational marijuana on the November ballot. The City would benefit because of the potential tax revenue. They needed to be realistic. Springfield had a great track record of being able to figure things out quickly. The City would be left behind in terms of business establishment if we didn’t make a decision now to figure out how to allow people to open dispensaries. She was very supportive of a public hearing in order to hear what the general public wants. The time had come for the City to rethink how they were doing this. They did need more information about this topic and what decisions needed to be made based on regulations. They also needed to hold a public hearing. She would like to be able to move forward. Councilor Woodrow said she understood, but wanted to make sure they could get that done in a timely manner. If they could get things set up in a timely manner and they determined after public input, they didn’t need a moratorium, she was fine with that. Councilor Brew said staff would be looking at zoning, etc. anyway. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 24, 2014 Page 9 Ms. King said that was correct. The way the law and Code were set up, the City didn’t have a way to know where the dispensaries were being located. They should determine if it was a listed use and the correct zoning. Councilor Moore said businesses as a whole came into Springfield without our knowledge. She thought they needed to look at some type of general business license so the City would know who was doing business in Springfield. When people applied for their business license, the City could provide code language for what was allowed or required a permit. That was part of a larger conversation. Councilor Ralston said he was not in favor of a moratorium. He had confidence in the City. Springfield had always been a leader and got things done before anyone else. He noted that many medications he takes have bad side effects. Mr. Grimaldi said for the public hearing, staff could make an additional attempt to come up with some regulations that permitted the businesses to move forward in a way that was best to avoid any zoning conflicts or other issues in neighborhoods. They could bring forward an option for the Council rather than just a moratorium. Ms. King said the law had been changing very quickly. Mayor Lundberg said they appreciated everyone’s hard work. This was a new frontier. Mr. Grimaldi said the public hearing would be scheduled for April 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2014 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 5th Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 6:00pm with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Board Chair Farr reconvened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Farr and Commissioners Stewart, Leiken, Bozievich and Sorenson. Lane County Planning Manager Matt Laird and other Lane County staff were also present. Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Glenwood Phase 1 Update (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005, TYP411-0007, and TYP311-00001 and Lane County File No. PA 11-5489). City Manager Gino Grimaldi read the Springfield ordinance into the record for a 3rd reading: SPRINGFIELD ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE NUMBERS TYP411-00005, TYP411-00007, AND TYP311-00001 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA 11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT, THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP, AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF 14.29 ACRES OF LAND FROM EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE TO COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Board Chair Farr read the Lane County ordinance into the record for a 6th reading: LANE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. PA1308 - AN ORDINANCE COMPLYING WITH THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND (2012-077/078/079) BY INCORPORATING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS INTO THE RECORD OF SPRINGFIELD FILE NUMBERS TYP411-00005 AND TYP411-00007 AND LANE COUNTY FILE NUMBER PA11-5489, AND AMENDING THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM AND TEXT AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF 14.29 ACRES OF LAND FROM EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE TO COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE AND ADOPTING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. (INITIATOR: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY FILE NO. PA 11-5489, SPRINGFIELD FILE NOS. TYP411- 00005 & TYP411-00007) (ADDITIONAL LANUAGE ADDED. April 1, 2014 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 2 of 3 Mayor Lundberg asked Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin to present the staff report. Mr. Goodwin said the elected officials had before them an ordinance that would amend and supplement the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) to address the remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). After initial adoption, an appeal was filed raising a number of specifications and assignments and sub-assignments of error. That matter was tried before LUBA and LUBA remanded on several topics. The remand was detailed in the staff report and had been reviewed by the elected officials during a previous work session. In addition, a property owner came forward regarding the designation of their property in Subarea D. After consultation and discussion with the citizen, staff concluded the goals of the GRP could be met by re-designating that land from employment mixed-use to commercial mixed-use. The ordinances before Council included a change in the GRP to accomplish that objective. Tonight, each public body must open the public record for the limited purpose of hearing public testimony on the proposed changes to the GRP as outline in the staff report, and then conduct a public hearing respective to those changes. After hearing any testimony, each public body would close the public hearing and, if appropriate, close the public record. Springfield City Council was scheduled to deliberate and act on this ordinance on April 7 and the County has tentatively established a 7th reading date for April 15 in which they would deliberate and act on the ordinance. Mayor Lundberg opened the public record and the public hearing for Springfield. Board Chair Farr asked if Lane County staff would be making a presentation. Lane County Planner Keir Miller said they would defer to the City’s presentation. Commissioner Farr opened the public record and the public hearing for Lane County. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public record and the public hearing for Springfield. Commissioner Farr closed the public record and the public hearing for Lane County. Mayor Lundberg noted that the Springfield City Council would not be taking action tonight. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOZIEVICH TO MOVE THE 6TH READING AND SET THE 7TH READING AND DELIBERATION FOR APRIL 15 ON ORDINANCE PA1308. Commissioner Leiken asked if the reading needed to be set for a specified time. Mr. Miller said no set time was needed since the public hearing had been closed. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. April 1, 2014 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 3 of 3 6:13pm Lane County Board of Commissioners continued with a separate item. Board Chair Farr read the following Lane County ordinance into the record for a 4th reading: ORDINANCE NO. 13-07 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LANE CODE CHAPTER 10 TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR APPLICATION FOR URBANIZABLE LANDS WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (LC 10.600-15) AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILTY CLAUSES. (Initiator: City of Springfield, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489, Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00005 & TYP411-00007). Mr. Miller said this was a companion piece to Ordinance PA1308. Staff recommended the Board roll this reading and hold an additional reading on April 15. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY BOZIEVICH TO MOVE THE 4TH READING AND SETTING A 5TH READING AND DELIBERATION ON ORDINANCE NO. 13-07 TO APRIL 15. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 6:14 p.m. Commissioner Farr adjourned the Lane County Commissioners at 6:14 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2014 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 7, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. 1. Springfield Transient Room Tax Revenues, Spending and Future Strategies and Projects Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery and Senior Management Analyst Courtney Griesel presented the staff report on this item. Springfield’s Transient Room Tax (TRT) funds are generated by taxing overnight hotel stays in Springfield. The City has spent room tax revenues historically on general fund, economic development, and tourism related activities. For every night stayed in a Springfield hotel, the City receives 4.5% of the room rate. This percentage is referred to as the Transient Room Tax or TRT. With over 1,400 rooms in the Springfield area, events and destinations generating more visitors and increasing annual hotel occupancies also increase amounts of TRT funds received by the City, funds which are required by the State to be used in part for tourism related activities. Because of this direct relationship, it is important to be strategic in both supporting tourism related facilities, activities, events, and destinations and the spending of received TRT dollars. In light of the TRT analysis of projected revenues, expenses, and accumulated reserves, staff is asking if Council would like staff to solicit community project proposals for remaining available funds through a formal process, which would include Council review and selection, or continue making contributions to TRT reserves, or a combination of both. A power point was presented on this item. Mayor Lundberg asked if the room tax rate was different in other communities. Ms. Griesel said it could be set by community. Eugene and Springfield both charged 4.5%, and Florence charged 4%. The County charged 5% in addition to the City TRT. TRT revenues increased with more visitors staying at the area hotels. A percentage of the revenues from the TRT must be spent on tourism related projects. She reviewed the historical trends in TRT revenues in Springfield. Generally revenues were down in the winter. Overall, Springfield TRT revenues were up which matched current trends. She referred to a chart showing how TRT funds were generally spent in Springfield. It was a policy decision on how these funds were spent. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 7, 2014 Page 2 Ms. Griesel said there were several types of TRT projects including investments in events (often annual) or investments in facilities which increased capacity. She referred to a table showing a snapshot of past room tax expenditures on tourism related projects or events from 2002 through 2013. These investments were divided between regional partnerships and Springfield partnerships. The Community Challenge Grant Program allowed the community to submit formal solicitations for TRT funds. This program was similar to the process for awarding Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds with a committee that reviewed the solicitations and provided a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Towery referred to a chart showing the revenues over the last few years and projected revenues. The number of rooms has grown, which increases the number of hotel stays. The chart also showed the activity in the reserve account. Councilor Brew said he didn’t see any capital projects on the charts. Mr. Towery said the last capital project was years ago when the City helped fund the renovation of Hayward Field in the amount of $270,000 over eighteen years. Councilor Ralston said the Glenwood Convention Center was referenced. He thought this presentation was to show whether or not the City had enough funds for that project. Mr. Towery said this was an opportunity to see the funds available. When they met with the County later in the evening, they would be seeking direction for that project. Councilor Ralston asked how much the Glenwood project would cost. Mr. Towery said about $150,000 the first year, $200,000 for the next couple of years, and up to $340,000 during the tenth year. The payment was set up to increase as the number of rooms and revenue increased. Councilor Ralston said the Glenwood project was important and he felt the City should focus on that project before funding other projects. Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to discuss room tax in general because there were newer councilors that had not been through some of these processes. Some small projects bring in large events. If all of the needed funds could be set aside for the Conference Center and the City still had funds left over, they should have some direction on how to allocate those funds. This discussion was to understand the process better. Councilor Ralston said he would like to use the conservative approach and fund the important project first, then see if we have enough in the future for other projects. Councilor Woodrow asked if the City had received any requests from the community. Mr. Towery said the latest requests had been for Track Town Olympic Trials and NCAA Track and Field Championships at Hayward Field. They had also received smaller requests for specific projects. Mayor Lundberg said the City had allotted $100,000 to the Olympic Trials. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes April 7, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Towery said that as correct. Looking at the current projections beyond funding a conference center and maintaining a healthy reserve, FY17 there should be about $75,000 to further supplement reserves or look at a local project process. Councilor Moore asked if there were restrictions on the length of time reserves can be kept in place. Mr. Duey said the reserve was retained in anticipation of fluctuation in revenues and unanticipated expenses. Revenues were fairly reliable for TRT funds and Council had discretion of how and when to spend. Reserves were generally a safety net for one or two years. Councilor Ralston asked for clarification on the room tax rate in Eugene and Springfield, and the rates for Lane County and Oregon. Mr. Towery said visitors paid City, County and State room tax. In Eugene and Springfield, that totaled 10.5%. Councilor Woodrow said she liked the fact they were reviewing this and they would get more information when talking about Glenwood. She would like another work session on this topic once they decided on the Glenwood project so they would know what funds they had remaining. Mayor Lundberg said in the past, discussion about the TRT would be part of the Budget process. There was a TRT Committee made up of Budget Committee members that received applications for TRT funds. Mr. Grimaldi said they could discuss it during the Budget process, or after a Memorandum of Understanding was negotiated for the Conference Center and the cash flow was known. Councilor Woodrow said whatever worked best. Mayor Lundberg said it was generally approved during the Budget process. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:23 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ Amy Sowa City Recorder MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY APRIL 7, 2014 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall, 225 5th Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday April 7, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Christine Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Board Chair Farr opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Farr and Commissioners Bozievich, Leiken, Stewart and Sorenson. Lane County Administrator Alicia Hayes, Glenda Poling and other Lane County staff were also present. 1. Glenwood Riverfront Area Development Letter of Intent. Springfield Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery presented the staff report on this item. Mr. Towery noted that staff was asking Council to authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of intent. He referred to a slide showing a sketch of a possible conference center and hotel in Glenwood on the riverfront. The City of Springfield and Lane County jointly adopted an Urban Renewal Plan for Glenwood about ten years ago, and the City and County had jointly adopted a Glenwood Refinement Plan for the entire riverfront area. Staff had been working with interested parties for this type of project in Glenwood for the last few years. Glenwood H&CC, LLC is requesting support and a funding partnership with the City of Springfield and Lane County. Specifically, Glenwood H&CC requests the City of Springfield and Lane County agree to contribute specified funds totaling up to $8.5M through annual payments for up to ten years to assist with and pay for the debt service of loans covering the financing of the ‘turn-key’ cost to develop and open the Glenwood Conference and Events Center. Staff is proposing the use of Transient Room Tax revenues in the amount of $2.5M as the source of payment for the City of Springfield portion of the partnership. Between TRT forecasted revenues and reserves, funds are available to fund this project over 10 years. This partnership would ensure the successful launch of the Conference Center through its start-up, construction, and first few critical years of operation. The proposed development will provide both Springfield and the greater metropolitan area substantial benefits by creating jobs, increasing tourism, conference and events center business, and generating room tax and property revenues for years to come. With the successful signature letter of Intent by both the City and County, City and County staff would work with the investors from Glenwood Hotel and Conference Facility over the next several weeks to negotiate a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The staff report outlined issues that would April 7, 2014 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 2 of 5 be outlined in the MOU such as roles and responsibilities of all parties including financial commitments and payment periods, commitments for infrastructure improvements consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan. Once those details were finalized, the MOU would come back to the City and County elected officials for formal approval. Glenda Poling, Manager of Lane County’s Community and Economic Development Division, thanked the City for allowing the County to participate in this joint meeting. The Glenwood Riverfront proposal was a plan to potentially transform the Glenwood area. She was excited to come and talk about this plan that has great potential to move forward. This was a multi-faceted complex and exciting project that presents economic development opportunity, not just for Springfield and Lane County, but for the region as a whole including the State of Oregon. A vibrant high-profile hotel and executive conference center would open the riverfront area and increase tourism. It would add hotel room capacity and increase the much needed meeting space needs. Plans for conference centers had surfaced before and had not been sustained so they were looking forward to this one coming to fruition. An economic impact would be felt immediately with an estimated 250 people employed in construction jobs. These jobs are projected to last more than 18 months. After construction, there would be over 150 full-time jobs when the hotel and conference center are up and running. TRT dollars would increase once the facility was open and would continue to increase. The project is centrally located with easy access to the University of Oregon, and both Springfield and Eugene downtowns. Lane Transit District’s (LTD) EmX currently provides public transportation along the route and the State has plans in place to build roundabouts in front of the property for efficient travel. The entire venue is easily accessible to and from I-5. Most notably from a visitor’s perspective, it would be a welcoming facility with day lighted river views from both the meeting space and hotel rooms. While the hotel and conference center would capture the Glenwood pristine riverfront for hospitality and amenities, they were only part of the larger development picture. There are plans for office and retail space and housing, including affordable housing in partnership with HACSA and Cornerstone Community Housing. For Lane County, the project presents an exciting opportunity to join with Springfield in a partnership that will further develop our economy, create new jobs and bring new visitors to Lane County. The local project team was virtually a Who’s Who of business professionals with years of experience, local folks who possess the know-how to develop projects that make for good public/private partnerships where the entire region can benefit from the capital, efficiency and knowledge and expertise of the private sector and the stability of local government. Mr. Towery introduced Greg Vik, representing Glenwood Hotel and Conference Center LLC (Glenwood H&CC, LLC), and one of his project partners Allen Lonstron. Mr. Vik thanked the councilors and commissioners for their consideration of the plans and funding concept for the conference center in Glenwood on the River, which was the catalyst for the redevelopment of the whole of Glenwood north of Franklin Boulevard. The Glenwood H&CC, LLC had been working on their plans for Glenwood for a number of years, master planning, evaluating development options, negotiating the land parcels, determining financing approaches, and optimizing building configurations. Success is found in a high degree of collaboration among our team – the City of Springfield, Lane County and themselves. This had been shown over the last 6-8 years. This project was about creating a new and vibrant retail, new housing, new office space, and new recreation, with an eye to what actually works in urban settings. Jane Jacobs is a renowned urban planner they had used as the spirit of the direction they were taking. At an outstanding natural location April 7, 2014 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 3 of 5 with a provocative, aesthetic, destination location to live, work, and play, and all the construction and sustained jobs that came with this project. This process wasn’t easy and was very challenging. Many metropolitan cities have large expanses of substandard or under-utilized areas. This is because redeveloping these areas is complex, time consuming, and many times ultimately forgotten. It is fraught with inherent delay and land use issues and sequencing. They were aware of the challenge and in the past years had worked hard through the various impediments, but were now at the confluence of all this work to start what could be the pride of our area and region. They understood the grand, but concealed opportunity to help create an urban community that follows through with their development ideas combined with their understanding of the inherent advantages and uniqueness of this site. There is an important combination of several factors that are available to all of us right now: ten years of pre- development work, recent approval of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, public/private partnerships efforts facilitated by the Glenwood Urban Renewal District, growing market opportunities in the hospitality industry, favorable hotel programs for now, low mortgage rates for now, building costs relatively low for now, and the Glenwood property owners were in concert with the plan. This is a powerful, unique opportunity – now. They respectfully ask for assistance in helping fund the conference center development, which in turn creates a demand generator for the hotel and together provide a catalyst for the overall redevelopment of Glenwood. This is an underutilized site of incomparable beauty, on the river (not above the river or across a road from the river or a ways from the river), but Glenwood on the River. Mr. Lonstron said this wouldn’t be just a hotel, but overall redevelopment in Glenwood. It would be kick started with a major project like the hotel, but needed more than the hotel. The concept was to come up with a demand generator. Throughout the country, conference, convention, and expo centers were publicly funded. Two of those locally include the Lane Events Center and the Eugene Hilton and Conference Center. The Valley River Inn was opposed to the Hilton being built, but it actually increased business for everyone. The developers are ready to start this hotel. They couldn’t divulge who the hotel company is because they are still in negotiations for the franchise. This alone could not pencil out with a demand generator. Initially, they considered building a small executive conference center. Ten years ago there were four full service hotels with meeting space in the metropolitan area with 899 hotel rooms. He spoke regarding group meeting dynamics. In order to get business from within the state and region, they needed to have the facilities and housing. The majority of rooms in our community are limited service without full food and beverage operations, meeting space, and banquet facilities. That was the one market segment that could bring business into the community. Since 2004, the number of rooms in headquarter-type hotels had decreased, as well as meeting space. They were proposing an executive conference center with top level technology and traditional function space in the bottom portion to feed 1000 people in one room. Conference centers don’t make enough money to pay the debt service to build them. They wanted to partner with the City and County and make an investment for the future. The $17M did not touch the operations, and amortized over twenty-five years at 4.5% interest was $28M. They needed help for the community to kick-start this with the debt service until they were stabilized in approximately seven to ten years. He noted the other properties involved in this project that would need to be developed to make this a vibrant, inter-supported community. That would start as soon as the conference center started to be built. There were cycles in the group meeting market. It takes five or six years to work into all of the booking cycles. They did a seven month market substantiation in which they asked hundreds of meeting organizers if they would come to this type of facility and what attributes they needed. Through this, they learned that this conference center would transcend what was needed for a 150-room hotel. They would need April 7, 2014 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 4 of 5 additional hotel rooms because this could generate 21,000 to 25,000 group room nights a year. That would be part of the development process. It all started right now with this investment in the future. Councilor Wylie said this was one of the most exciting things that had come to the Council. It was something she had been hoping for and envisioning since becoming a Councilor. Glenwood on the River was beautiful and it was thrilling to see the possibility of this development. Commissioner Sorenson asked how they would like to handle questions from the Commissioners, such as another joint meeting with the City Council. He asked if they had written information. Mr. Lonstron said they did have materials. It would be great to have an opportunity to go through all of the steps with the Board. Commissioner Sorenson asked if there was as residual benefit the government received in the arrangements for the Eugene Conference Center or the Florence Conference Center. He asked if it was a co-ownership. Mr. Lonstron said the developers would own the facilities. The developers would go to the lending market to find out what it took to complete this project. The funds needed from the City and County matched the projected room tax funds during that ten-year period plus or minus $12,000. This would bring in 150 jobs once completed. They had to determine that number as part of the requirement for the hotel funding program. Mr. Vik said this was the kick-start for a large redevelopment for the whole area. Commissioner Leiken said the Board needed to give Ms. Hayes direction to go to the agenda team to schedule a meeting to look further at this topic. He asked if the presenters would be available to come to a Board meeting and how much time they would need for that meeting. The commissioners had a lot of significant questions that would take more time. Ms. Hayes said they would like to have direction to get this before the agenda team tomorrow (Tuesday, April 8) and look at the availability on the April 15 Board Meeting or the next week. Board Chair Farr said they could discuss the date and format tomorrow. Ms. Hayes said that would also give Christine Moody a chance to look at finances and provide more in-depth information to the commissioners. Councilor Ralston said the Council was giving the City Manager permission to sign the letter of intent. Mayor Lundberg noted that many years ago Mr. Vik came to the City with a proposal, along with another developer. The City chose the other developer, and she apologized because she felt their proposal was more realistic. They understood the area and the challenges. She thanked him for coming back with this proposal. April 7, 2014 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 5 of 5 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE LETTER OF INTENT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lundberg adjourned the Springfield City Council at 6:59 p.m. Board Chair Farr recessed the County Commissioners at 6:59 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder ______________________ Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ____________________ City Recorder