HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/2005 Regular
,
.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY AUGUST 1, 2005
The City of Springfield council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, August 1,2005, at 7:08 p.m., with Council President
Woodrow presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors Ballew, Ralston, Lundberg, Woodrow, Fitch and Pishioneri. Also
present were Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder
Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Leiken was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Woodrow.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
.
1. Recognition of Tracy Neal for Ten Years of Service to the City of Springfield.
Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas introduced Tracy Neal and gave a brief summary of her
history with the city. Ms. Neal is currently the Animal Control Officer for the City of
Springfield. Ms. Pappas discussed the changes Ms. Neal had noted in the city since she first
started and some of the humorous events she recalled.
2. Recognition of Randy Nawalaniec for Ten Years of Service to the City of Springfield.
Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas introduced Mr. Nawalaniec and gave a brief summary of
his history with the city. Mr. Nawalaniec is currently with the Maintenance Department of Public
Works. Ms. Pappas discussed some of Mr. Nawalaniec's accomplishments with the city and the
number of changes that had occurred in the city since he started.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilor Pishioneri asked that if any complaints came in from citizens regarding the permit
allowing construction activities outside of the hours of7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. for the Martin
Luther King, Jr., Parkway Construction, that council be briefed on each complaint. E-mail could
be used to relay that information since council would be on recess. He also asked for assurance
that construction would not begin before 7:00 a.m.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August I, 2005
Page 2
.
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. July 18,2005 - Work Session
b. July 18,2005 - Regular Meeting
c. July 25,2005 - Work Session
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 05-45 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING AN AMENDED MASTER SCHEDULE
OF RATES. PERMITS. LICENSES. AND OTHER FEES AND CHARGES AS
ESTABLISHED BY THE SPRINGFIELD MUNlCIP AL CODE AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 05-46 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO AWARD COMPETITIVE BIDS AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN
$35.000 AND APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS DURING THE
PERIOD OF AUGUST 2. 2005 TO SEPTEMBER 1 L 2005. WHILE THE CITY
COUNCIL IS IN RECESS.
4. Ordinances
.
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6138 - AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO SIGN STANDARDS
AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8. AMENDING
AND ADDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OR PORTIONS THEREOF: 8.218(3)
BANNER PERMIT FEES. 8.218(4) BLIMPS. PORTABLE SIGNS. PENNANTS.
BALLOONS AND SEARCHLIGHTS. AND 8.236(6) PORTABLE SIGNS
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Approval of the Bid Award for Project P20446: Residential Street Sealing 2005, to
Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. in the Amount of$15l,234.81.
b. Approval to Permit Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of7 a.m. and 6 p.m. for
the Martin Luther King, Jr., Parkway Construction Project P20208 During Set Days and
with Conditions as Stated in the Agenda Item Summary.
c. Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Amendment to an Intergovernmental Agreement
with the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) for Services Pertinent to the Mill Race
Ecosystem Restoration Project. .
d. ' Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Contract with Balzhiser &
Hubbard Engineers to Increase the Contract Amount by $57,403.01 for Project P20329,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Parkway Sanitary and Trunk Sewer.
e. Approval of the 2005 City Manager Contract Addendum.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1,2005
Page 3
1. Shirley Collingwood. 5335 Main Street #234. Springfield. OR Ms. Collingwood said she had
been a member of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce and Greeters for over twenty years,
a member of the Beta Sigma Phi for ten years, and president of a 300 member Friendship
Club. She said there was a defmite need for a conference center in Springfield. In 1985,
Springfield had the 3rd Greeter Ambassador Convention which included 375 members from
all over the state. In 2001, Springfield again won the bid for convention and entertained 300
members from Oregon, Nevada and Washington. The conventions were meant to show off
our city. In 2011, they will again be bidding for another convention, this time a National
Convention. She said it would be a shame to go across the river to showcase our city. She
urged council to help our city fmd property and build a conference center.
.
2. Murrav Petitt. 1011 Harlow Road. Springfield. OR. Mr. Petitt is Chair of the Springfield
Chamber of Commerce's Future Committee. Development and construction of a hotel and
conference center was a major goal of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce and the Future
Committee was charged with spearheading this effort. The Chamber had spent $40,000 of its
own money plus hundreds of hour of staff and member time in pursuit of this goal. He spoke
of the recent trip to Davis County to visit their newly built conference center and to learn how
they achieved their goal. He said they learned that the hoteVconference center was built
through a public/private partnership and throughout the country; such partnerships were used
for these facilities. Mr. Petitt referred to the July 25 work session when the council met with
local business owners from the Gateway area. At the conclusion of that meeting, pledges of
money totaling nearly $100,000 were made to fmance the necessary studies needed for this
project. He noted each of the businesses who had pledged support for this project. He said
there was a need for a hoteVconference center and the time to move forward was now. He
discussed the unique opportunity that exists now. He thanked the councilors and the city for
their support and involvement. He gave a brief history of past centers and the loss of the
Clarion. The population of Springfield had doubled since the Roadway Inn was first built.
Gateway would soon be the most concentrated employment district in the Eugene/Springfield
area. He urged council to vote in favor of pledging funds to assist with this study.
3. Greg Waite. 6587 Aaron Lane. Springfield. OR. Mr. Waite said he represented several
viewpoints regarding the convention center. He said he was the Chairman Elect for the
Springfield Greeters. Mr. Waite went to the national convention this year and came back
with the opportunity to bid on that event to bring it to Springfield in 2011 along with the
statewide convention at the same time. He said that represented the opportunity to bring in
350 people for a week or better at a time along with the attendance for the Statewide
Convention. He said the issue was that Springfield did not have a place large enough to
accommodate anything like that. He said he had also worked for a number of groups that had
looked for a place to hold an event, but there was no place that could accommodate more than
one hundred people. He said Springfield needed a conference center as we continue to grow
and bring groups such as the Greeters to Springfield. He urged council support for the
feasibility study.
.
4. Dan Egan. 850 North 6th Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Egan is the Executive Director for the
Springfield Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Egan spoke in support of a conference center and
reviewed the history ofthis endeavor. He hoped a conference center could be built shortly.
He said this was an important juncture to draw up agreements that would lead to construction
of a conference center in Springfield. A conference center would not only solidify local
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1,2005
Page 4
business, but also business that we had never seen to Springfield. He thanked council for
their support to this point. He discussed the support the city had offered over the years.
5. Kari Westlund. 87855 Mistv Lane. Veneta. OR. Ms. Westlund is with the Convention and
Visitor's Association of Lane County (CV ALCO). Ms. Westlund said she lived in Veneta,
worked in Eugene, but she wanted to bring business to Springfield. She wanted to confirm
that CV ALCO had $15,000 earmarked for the remaining feasibility work on the Springfield
conference center project and remained committed to this project. She discussed market
demand from non-local users. She said when you add the demand from non-local users plus
the testimonials from local businesses in the area and civic uses, there was a great demand for
the Springfield conference center. She noted that the last study was done before the Clarion
and Ramada were lost. She said the next round of analysis should take us to facility size and
scope, develop proformas for the operations of the facility, design and construction
documents, and articulated operating and ownership agreements. She wished the project was
under construction now, but she agreed that a prudent and methodical study should be done to
safeguard the public's interest. Through the long process, a great deal had been learned. A
prudent and analytical hotel developer had been attracted to this project. A local developer
had been key to the successful models. She discussed the resources now available to assure
financial feasibility for Springfield. She said there were ways to finance this project in a way
as to not burden the local taxpayer, but city's staff would be important. She said she hoped
the council would recognize the economic and civic role this project would play in the
community.
.
6. Jeanette Welker. 28182 Briggs Hill Road. Eugene. OR. Ms. Welker is the Chairman of
Springfield Chamber of Commerce Greeters. She said the challenge for her had been where
to host the joint Greeters meeting. She had been told there was no place in Springfield to
meet. She said they were creative and met at the Regional Sports Center. She said it went
well, but they are growing and the Sports Center was not built to accommodate that many
people. She said the Greeters had a lot of energy and enthusiasm and she did not want that to
stop because they did not have a local place to meet. She supported building a conference
center and discussed the timeliness and opportunity.
7. Phillip Farrington. PeaceHealth. 123 International Way. Springfield. OR. Mr. Farrington is
with PeaceHealth. He said that last week Brian Terrett spoke before council about the
conference center. PeaceHealth was delighted to participate and provide support for this
project. He discussed the needs that PeaceHealth had regarding meeting space. In their
master plan a place was identified for a future learning center, and a space for housing that
could accommodate families for long-term stays. The types of facilities being discussed for
the hotel/conference center could provide some of those needs. He said they were ready to
support this, whether it was on property that was owned by PeaceHealth or elsewhere. He
said they were looking forward to allying with the city and other Gateway businesses. He
asked council to support what they could as well.
.
8. George Staples. Delta Sand and Gravel. 999 Division Ave.. Eugene. OR. Mr. Staples said he
was here to speak regarding the noise variance that council approved under the Consent
Calendar. He said they appreciated council's approval and they would do their best not to
impact those who live in the area. He said the dates and times listed on the agenda item
summary were subject to some change, but they would keep people and the city informed.
He said they appreciated council's support.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August I, 2005
Page 5
9. Joel Pomerantz. Oregon Restaurant Association. 1171 Risden Place. Eugene. OR. Mr.
Pomerantz spoke regarding the Gaming Ordinance that was before council. He said this
ordinance was requested by several owners of establishments, specifically bars and taverns,
in Springfield that saw themselves at a competitive disadvantage to the business operators in
surrounding communities. The ordinance was altered to address concerns from community
and council members. One of the aspects of the ordinance was to require a license from
business operators, to license organizers of these games who provide a service by providing
equipment the players could use and to monitor the games to assure fairness. The fee
structure in the amended ordinance asked that organizers pay a $100 license fee and be
subject to background checks as the business owners. He said it was important to understand
that for both the business owners and organizers of the games, there would be no taking of
any shares of the stakes the players contribute to the game. The organizers would get a fee of
$5 per player and no play would be allowed by the business owner or organizer. The
amended ordinance now tried to address the issues of fairness and he felt it was a good one.
.
10. Ed Bergeron. 2064 Law Lane. Eugene. OR. Mr. Bergeron is the Past President ofCV ALCO
and the Springfield Chamber of Commerce. He said he was before council as the Chair of
the Springfield Chamber's Gateway Development Committee. He said many of the
committee members had pledged dollars for the next phase of the feasibility study because
they felt it was a tremendous economic development opportunity for our community and for
the Gateway area in particular. He said they appreciated the city's past partnership and
encouraged their continued involvement and support to bring this project to completion and
provide the much needed meeting space to keep the jobs in our community.
11. Bob Keefer. Willamalane Parks and Recreation District. 200 South Mill St.. Springfield. OR.
Mr. Keefer is the Superintendent of the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District. He said
he was before council to encourage support of the Symantec Property tax exemption with the
understanding that there would be something there for TEAM Springfield. He discussed the
uniqueness of the TEAM Springfield concept. Many times in communities that have
enterprise zones, other taxing districts are not aware until after the fact. He appreciated being
involved and being asked for input in both the Symantec and Williams Bakery Enterprise
Zone exemption. He discussed the Regional Sports Park and the soccer fields that were
scheduled to be completed. Willamalane was requesting that Williams Bakery and Symantec
donate $30,000 toward that project. With those dollars, the private donors they had received
and with some Willamalane funds, that project could be completed. He discussed the lighting
that would go in on those fields and how that would increase the usage. He said School
Superintendent Nancy Golden also asked that council consider the support funding from
Williams Bakery and Symantec through the Enterprise Zone exemption for the theater to
bring business to downtown Springfield. With these types of donations, things like the
Regional Sports Center and a Regional Conference Center would be possible, bringing
business to Springfield.
.
12. Don McCabe. 444 N. 42nd Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. McCabe spoke regarding the Social
Games Ordinance. He reiterated several of the concerns of the council regarding the
organizer of the events. Mr. McCabe said as the owner of the Pour House Tavern, he had
numerous functions at the tavern. He said he paid people to help promote business and that
created jobs. He said they employed people and also created other jobs for people coming in
to enhance his business and other tavern owners' businesses. He said there was nothing
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1, 2005
Page 6
wrong with creating jobs as it was good for business and the community. He hoped council
would take into consideration that the business owners wanted to keep these games as honest
and level as possible. One of the best ways to do that was to have someone come in that
knew what they were doing and could run the games. That was the best way to keep it
running smoothly. He asked council to keep that part of the ordinance intact.
13. Keith Simonson. 1877 North 7th Street. P.O. Box 1087. Cottage Grove. OR. Mr. Simonsen
said he was an operator of the games. He said he had recommended the operators were
licensed and had background checks just as the owners. It was important to have an honest
operator. He said it was his job to make sure the game was played fair and the equipment
was correct. He said it was important to have someone monitor the game to make sure it was
run honestly so the police didn't have to be called in, and that was his job. He said he had
been doing these games for six months and had no problems. He said there was not a lot of
money exchanged, because it was a tournament. Each player paid a fee of $10, $20 or $30 to
get into the tournament and then they played with chips. They didn't lose large amounts of
money as in cash games. He asked for council's support.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
.
1. Correspondence from Nick Shevchynski, 2445 Skyline Boulevard, Eugene, OR Regarding
ORS 30.275 Notice to the City of Springfield.
2. Correspondence from Bob Keefer, Willamalane Parks and Recreation District
Superintendent, 200 South Mill Street, Springfield, OR Regarding the Extension of the
Enterprise Zone for Williams Bakery.
3. Correspondence from Pat Lewis, Willamalane Parks and Recreation District Executive
Secretary, 200 South Mill Street, Springfield, OR Regarding the Board-Appointed
Representative to the City of Springfield.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Vacation of a 26.5 Foot Wide Public Easement in the Wildish Industrial Tracts Subdivision
(Wildish).
ORDINANCE NO. 6139 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC EASEMENT IN
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. LANE COUNTY OREGON
.
City Planner Colin Stephens presented the staff report on this item. The applicant, Wildish
Industrial Development Corporation, is requesting that the city vacate a portion of a 26.5- foot
wide public easement originally intended for a railroad spur in the Wildish Industrial Tracts
Subdivision because there is no need for public access through the property. The subject property
is located south of the Nugget Way and 19th Avenue intersection on the west side of Nugget Way,
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1,2005
Page 7
Map Number 18-03-03-11, Tax Lot(s) 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200 & Map Number 18-
03-03-1 Tax Lot 1300.
The Williams Bakery facility, which is being constructed on the subject property, received Final
Site Plan Approval on June 6, 2005. City staff determined that the existing 26.5-foot public
easement running along the western property line of Lots 1-7 of the Wildish Industrial Tracts
Subdivision must be vacated to accommodate the proposed building footprint. The staff have
determined that there is no need for a public railroad spur easement through the subject property.
Therefore, the applicant was directed to seek the council's approval for vacation of this public
railroad easement. The City Attorney, City Surveyor and Cascade Title Company all recommend
that the council vacate this encumbrance on the title of the affected property in a public hearing
and remove all clouds of doubt. All three agree that this is the most legally prudent method of
action. Section 3.204 of the Springfield Municipal Code requires abutting property owners to be
assessed if they receive special benefit when public street right-of-way is vacated. This railroad
easement is not a public street and is therefore not subject to this provision of the Municipal
Code. The council conducted the first reading on this ordinance on July 18,2005. There is no
financial impact to the city for this action.
.
Mr. Stephens referred to the questions council had during the first reading and public hearing on
July 18,2005. The first question was whether or not there was any monetary value associated
with this easement. Staff reviewed this issue with the City Attorney's Office under the recently
adopted Municipal Code amendments in Chapter 3, Section 2, Streets, which required a
benefiting property owner to be assessed when right-of-way was vacated that abuts that property.
The interpretation of the staff and City Attorney's Office was that public utility easements and
railroad easements do not require an assessment from the abutting property.
Mr. Stephens said the second question was whether or not the city had the authority to vacate the
easement. The City Recorder distributed an 11 Y2 x 17 document which showed the Wildish
Industrial tracts. Two items were highlighted on that document. The green highlight indicated
the easement to be vacated. Mr. Stephens read from the yellow highlighted area, "we hereby
dedicate to the free use of the public forever the streets and easements as shown hereon for said
purposes, respectively". The City Surveyor and the City Attorney looked at that language and
determined that through reference that dedicated that railroad easement to the public. That
subdivision was filed with the county in 1969 and had not yet been annexed to the city. The
property was subsequently annexed to the City of Eugene and when the City of Springfield took
over jurisdiction of Glenwood from Eugene, Springfield took over jurisdiction of the easement.
The City Surveyor, the City Attorney and the title company determined that vacation by the city
council with a public hearing was the appropriate way to dispense of this easement.
Mr. Stephens said that on July 18, 2005 it was noted that there was an incorrect reference to the
Oregon Revised Statutes in the draft ordinance attached to the packet that evening. That had been
corrected and was reflected in the stamped ordinance before council.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6139. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
.
2. Social Games (Gambling).
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1,2005
Page 8
ORDINANCE NO. 6140 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE (SMC) SECTION 5.254 TO REFERENCE THE SPRINGFIELD SOCIAL GAMING
CODE 5.258 AND ADDING SPRINGFIELD SOCIAL GAMINGITEXAS HOLDEM
POKER CARD TOURNAMENT TO THE SMC AS SECTION 5.258 AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
Councilor Lundberg recused herself from discussion on this item as she had a conflict of interest
with her establishment.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. Prompted by a request by Mr.
Don McCabe, council discussed the adoption of a modification of the Springfield Municipal Code
to permit "tournament" poker games. Council directed staff to construct an ordinance that
authorized the playing of tournament style poker games commonly referred to as Texas Hold-em.
The draft ordinance (attachment 1 in the Agenda Packet) is presented for council consideration.
The license fee of $100 specified in Section 5.258 (6) & (11) is based upon the recommendation
of Dave Puent and is equal to the Liquor License Application F ee.There is a buy in limitation
required by state law. No tournament may charge a player a total "buy in" or entry fee greater
than $100 in a 24-hour period. No other winnings or compensation to the payers is permitted
other than the "buy in" or entry fee.
.
Because of a lack of track record at the Police Department there is no basis to include in the
annual license fee required in Section 5.258 (6) & (11) investigative or enforcement costs.
However, Section 4 of the Ordinance requires periodic review in approximately a year from the
date this Ordinance takes effect. At that time, ifthere has been inordinate investigative or
enforcement costs, adjustments may be made.
Additionally, Section 5.258 (15) provides a penalty for a fme not to exceed $500 for each
violation. Revocation of the license may occur by the Municipal Court upon conviction or
through an administrative revocation by the City Manager's office. This ordinance may be a
precursor for future request to expand social games to include other forms of card games without
corresponding resources to investigate and enforce gambling violations.
Chief Smith gave a brief history of why this was brought before council. Staff drafted an
ordinance to allow tournament style play. After the packets went out, a meeting was held with
Mr. McCabe and several others and some revisions were made to the ordinance. The updated
ordinance was distributed to council. He described the changes: On page 2, the Tournament
Organizer was defined; On page 4 it called for the license of not only the business owner but also
the organizer (he explained why that was added); On page 6, section 10, there was a $5 fee per
player that the organizer could charge for participating in the game. The ordinance restricted
social games to Texas HoldEm Tournament style format. There was also recognition in the
ordinance that by state law there could be $100 or less buy-in per player in a twenty-four hour
period.
Councilor Fitch appreciated the collaborative work with the businesses to get this ordinance
drafted. She said she hoped the city wouldn't have to use city resources to supervise these
tournaments.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August I, 2005
Page 9
.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was pleased with the draft ordinance that was originally in the
agenda packet, but was not pleased with the current draft. He said the tournament organizer was
well justified and he concurred that the game should be run honestly, that a person should not
work for free, and that people should be paid to come in to work for a restaurant for services
rendered. He said this had nothing to do with someone having an independent job, but was
something that if people wanted to come in to play, they would come in to play. He said the
residual benefit to the business owner was increased sales of drinks and food. He said he was not
here to create an enterprise for gaming organizers. He concurred that it would be a fun time for
people who participated. He said if there were no fee, people would flock to. the business, so he
could not support it the way it was written.
Councilor Ralston said he loved the game and had no problems with the original ordinance. He
didn't have a problem with the fee, but had a problem with the amount ofthe fee and who was
paying it. He discussed the fee paid to the organizer. The buy-in fee for the player, however,
seemed high. He discussed having the option of a sliding schedule. He said he would not oppose
the ordinance based on the fee, but he didn't like the fact that players would be paying the fee.
He said he knew other communities had it set up that way.
Mr. Leahy said there was no requirement for a tournament organizer. That would be the choice
of the owner of the establishment. The owner of the establishment could put on the tournament
without hiring an organizer. In that event there would be no fee for the organizer because there
would not be one.
.
Councilor Ralston said he liked the way Springfield did things differently and having no fee
would set us aside from other communities and could draw in more participants. He would
suggest the fee would not be the maximum of $5 each time. The fee should be set by the
proprietor and he would suggest a lesser amount, such as $3, to make it different than other
communities. Discretion should be used and the fee advertised.
Councilor Ballew asked for confirmation that the hand-out ordinance was newer than the
ordinance in the packet.
Mr. Leahy said that was correct. He explained the meeting that took place last Friday after the
agenda packets with the ordinance had gone out to council. He discussed the changes that were
made as a result of that meeting. The business owners had requested that the owner and operator
could play, but Chief Smith thought that would not be appropriate in the beginning and could
possibly be added later. Staff wanted something as clean as possible. Of the four
recommendations by the business owners, two were presented to council. If council wanted to
delete the Tournament Organizer fee or reduce the fee, that could be done by amendment. That
could be a market issue. There was no entry fee that could be charged by the oWner of
establishment, only by the Tournament Organizer.
Councilor Ballew asked Councilor Pishioneri what would make it acceptable.
.
Councilor Pishioneri said having no Tournament Organizer fee. He asked if there was a potential
wording issue on the last sentence on page 6, Section 1 O( e), of the newest ordinance "the
Tournament Organizer, etc. shall take no part of the moneys taken from the tournament players as
profit, expenses, etc." He asked if it was a conflict with lO(a).
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1,2005
Page 10
Mr. Leahy said it was not a conflict, but it could be worded to make it clearer. He said he would
change it to read "buy-in fees" rather than "the moneys".
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
FITCH TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6140. *
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO.3 TO
ELIMINATE SECTION 10(A) FROM PAGE 6. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO.3 THAT
THE TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER FEE NOT EXCEED $3. THE MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OFA SECOND.
Mr. Leahy said he would change Section 10(e) to reflect the understanding of the council "the
"house" licensee, private business owner, "manager, Tournament Organizer, etc., shall take no part
of the "buy in" from the tournament players as profit or expenses, etc." to make it clearer as
Councilor Pishioneri said.
.
Councilor Fitch said council had stepped out on a limb in looking what people wanted. The idea
was to have fun and provide entertainment for the citizens. She addressed the business owners
and said it would be sad if citizens complained about the cost of the buy-in. If there was enough
opposition, this ordinance could be removed. She said she hoped the business owners had heard
that message.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
FITCH TO AMEND SECTION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE IT FROM A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR TO SIX MONTHS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSTENTION - LUNDBERG).
* THE MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6140 PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4
FOR AND 1 AGAINST (PISmONERI) (1 ABSTENTION - LUNDBERG).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Business from Council
a. Committee Report
1. Councilor Pishioneri said he attended the Relay for Life event sponsored by the
American Cancer Society at Lane Community College. He commended the
Springfield Police for their devotion to that good cause. He said he would challenge
the Springfield Police to beat the Lane County Sheriffs Office next year.
.
2. Councilor Woodrow said he attended the National Neighborhood Night Out held
Sunday, July 31 at Island Park. He said there was a good turnout. The
Neighborhood Watch Progt"?ID had representatives, the Springfield Police and a
number of other organizations were there and all had a great time.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1, 2005
Page II
.
Councilor Woodrow also reminded council that the TEAM Springfield Mid-Year
meeting would be held August 24 at 5:00pm at Agnes Stewart Middle School
(ASMS). He said a press conference was scheduled for Tuesday, August 2 at the
Eugene AmTrak Depot with Congressman Peter DeFazio at 1 :30pm.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Symantec Corporation Request Regarding Enterprise Zone Extension in Gateway.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-47 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH LANE COUNTY AND THE SYMANTEC
CORPORATION TO EXTEND THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION TWO YEARS FOR
A TECHNICAL SUPPORT CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER IN THE GATEWAY AREA.
.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staffreport on this item.
Symantec has requested that both sponsors (Lane County and the City of Springfield) of the
Springfield Enterprise Zone approve extending enterprise zone benefits. In its decision to build a
$35 million technical support facility in the Gateway area of Springfield, Symantec needs to
know if it will have an additional two years (five years total) of enterprise zone benefits to ensure
compensation and hiring meets the zone requirements. A three-year exemption requires the firm
to merely increase its employment level by 10% and maintain it throughout the exemption period.
The extended five-year exemption also requires that the average compensation level for new hires
be maintained above 150% of Lane County's average wage of$30,316 or above $45,474
throughout the five-year exemption.
Mr. Tamulonis said Symantec currently had a facility with a similar exemption and had been
considering doubling their facility for some time. They had exceeded the Enterprise Zone
requirements at the original facility. Mr. Tamulonis introduced Zach Wilson from Symantec who
was present for questions. Some of the things to be included in the Enterprise Zone Exerription
would be additional contributions from Symant~c such as: $30,000 in lighting for the Regional
Sports Center and $30,000 for the Wildish Theater. Symantec had also been asked to provide a
share of funding for the conference center study, but their foundation was not able to do that, so
the city was suggesting an additional $25,000 through the Enterprise Zone contract to pay for that
study. Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners co-sponsor this
Enterprise Zone Exemption. Lane County had typically asked for one-quarter of what Springfield
had asked for in the past, so he would be taking this and the Williams Bakery Enterprise Zone
Exemption to the County Commissioners in the next three weeks. Tonight's request was to allow
the City Manager to negotiate those agreements and move it forward to Lane County for their
approval.
Councilor Ralston asked what the tax benefit would be in the last two years.
Mr. Tamulonis said it would be about $642,000 each year, totaling about $1.28M. The amount
requested through the requirements of the Enterprise Zone from the city and the county was about
37 percent ofthat amount or $480,000 total.
.
Councilor Ralston said the public looks at this differently. He said he supported economic
development and hoped to see businesses expand. He would like to think a business expanded
because it made sense and they liked doing business in Springfield. He said he was opposed to
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August I, 2005
Page 12
.
the extended Enterprise Zone. He said he supported Symantec and economic development, but
the city had budget issues and needed the money.
Councilor Fitch said she supported it because of the requirements for the level of wages, allowing
citizens to have family wage jobs that would allow them to buy homes in Springfield. This would
allow citizens that had an education to have a level of earning that would allow them to stay here
with their families and to grow with our community. She said she was supportive of the
Enterprise Zone Extension and the expansion of the business.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 05-47. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. SEDA-City Cooperation Agreement.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item.
SEDA is an independent agency under state laws with an interest in having general and specific
functions done through an agreement with the City of Springfield. The character and extent of the
relationship is in a key intergovernmental agreement between the two organizations: the
Cooperation Agreement. Such Cooperation Agreements are typical, based on discussions with
expert individuals for urban renewal agencies and agreements that define similar relationships
elsewhere.
.
In discussions on July 25,2005, the SEDA board provided final changes to a Cooperation
Agreement and the approved version here (Attachment A) it now proposes for signing by SEDA
and the City of Springfield. This is a basic document that establishes the framework for long-term
cooperation between SEDA, an urban renewal agency, and its authorizing City Council. It
permits flexibility for the lengthy period of the urban renewal plan to adjust the detailed
operational arrangements without having to redefine and modify the essential character of the
agreement between the two organizations underlying the purpose of the urban renewal plan.
Thus, operational details can be modified and adjusted as conditions change, while the underlying
character remains in place.
Mr. Tamulonis said some changes were made to the agreement following further review by city
counsel, county counsel and the city's bond counsel. He noted the only changes made in the
agreement as suggested by the city's bond counsel were bolded on page 1, D, "is in the public
interest"; page 2, Section 1, last sentence, "Any other subordination to financing shall be
approved by the Agency and the City. Any such financing shall be.. ."; and page 3, Section
5, "inception on January". He said the only other information they received from the bond
counsel was that Section 8 had some potential limitations. When doing urban renewal agencies,
you must be prudent to make sure things bought with tax increment financing remain in the urban
renewal agency if sold at a profit. The bond counsel recommended that the last sentence of
Section 8 would not allow much opportunity for purchasing something without tax increment
financing. The sentence would remain in the contract, but would require caution. He said the
final copy would be stamped by the City Attorney and the Lane County Counsel, Steve Vorhees.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF THE
COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August I, 2005
Page 13
.
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SEDA) AND THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ONCE
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6
FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3. Follow-up Regarding Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce and Conference Center
Development.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. At
the July 25,2005 work session, council and Chamber representatives discussed the potential for a
conference center like the one built in Davis County, Utah. Gateway business community
members spoke to their need and potential use for the center and the value for the center to both
enhance economic development and have a positive impact on tourism. Council had several
questions regarding such facilities and the opportunities offered in the Gateway area before
responding to the Chamber requests. Mr. Tamulonis addressed those questions.
.
Mr. Tamulonis distributed a document showing the Davis County Conference Center Proforma
Operating Budgets without debt service and the Construction Budget. He said the Davis County
Conference Center debt coverage was being covered by a series of funds outside the actual
operations of the facility, such as through room tax, meals, charges and car rentals. He discussed
the change in the deficit for the fIrst year which was attributed to the hiring of another employee
to assist with marketing. This increased their expenses by about $45,000. Their income levels
had actually been exceeded by about two percent. He described fees Davis County was paying to
the county to manage the facility and the funds they had set aside for Reserve and Replacement.
The back side of the document gave a chart ofthe Davis County Conference Center, Construction
Budget. Mr. Tamulonis explained the savings by co-locating the hotel and conference center.
Councilor Ralston asked for an example of a financial mechanism that would not cost the citizens
any money.
Mr. Tamulonis said there were often a number of components, such as a conference center, hotel,
parking structure and land development. Some communities had fmanced through revenue bonds
the development and operation of parking structures. If a couple of organizations that would
normally be building such structures made use of those parking structures built with revenue
bonds, those private organizations could put money toward building the conference center. He
said it was a matter of finding how the pieces could fit together, who had risks and who might
make those types of investments. ;
Councilor Ralston asked who would bear the deficit the fIrst couple of years.
Mr. Tamulonis said in Davis County the county took the deficit because it would be their facility.
They were anticipating that the hotelier would buy the property and the county could then make a
profit. The building was expected to be paid off in ten years, which was very good for a facility
of that size. .
Councilor Ralston said at this point, Sycan was interested in building the hotel. He asked where
the convention center was coming from.
.
Mr. Tamulonis said it could be through a bond or other businesses or individuals. He said it was
unknown at this point. The studies that would be done would provide more detail and
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1,2005
Page 14
.
recommendations. He said they had talked to experts and every facility had been done
differently.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
FITCH TO PROVIDE CITY FUNDING OF $25,000 FOR STUDIES NECESSARY FOR
SITING AND DEVELOPING A CONFERENCE CENTER PROJECT IN SPRINGFIELD;
COMMIT APPROXIMATELY .125 FTE STAFF TIME AND ASSISTANCE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER TO DEVELOP A CONFERENCE
CENTER PROJECT; AND AGREE TO PARTNER WITH THE CHAMBER AND
GATEWAY BUSINESS FIRMS TO ADMINISTER THE CONFERENCE CENTER
PROJECT THROUGH THE UPCOMING FEASffiILITY PHASES. *
Councilor Lundberg said she had several comments. The proposed conference center was being
considered in her ward and she cared about what happened in the Gateway area. She would love
to have a conference center and she would love to have the urban growth boundary (UGB)
expanded. The issue was that we had studied this a great deal already. She noted that many
facilities were not making money. These types of facilities were often public/private partnership
because that was not the part that made money and needed public support. She referred to the
conference center in Salem. She said she wouldn't support pledging $25,000 for the study, but
would support $5000. She understood the need to replace the Clarion which was outdated and
didn't serve its purpose. She said she was very supportive of the conference center but didn't feel
the city could afford that level of commitment.
.
Councilor Ballew agreed with Councilor Lundberg. She said the city didn't have the financing to
participate. She said she didn't want the city to step forward as a major player in the conference
center. She said conference centers didn't make money. She discussed the deficits the city was
currently facing. She wished them well, and would support an amount less than $25,000. She
said she would not support dedicating staff time. She said she didn't feel there was a need for this
study.
Councilor Ralston said he didn't see Lane County participation in this and he wanted to see what
had been done to include them. He said he supported this, but thought the responsibility should
be shared as much as possible.
Councilor Fitch said she would support this because it was needed. She said she hoped this was
the last feasibility study before construction. She said this was not something the city could fund
or operate, and there would need to be a lot of creativity in the feasibility study to make this
work, such as room tax dollars which were previously put toward Hayward Field that could be
dedicated to a new project. She also recommended looking at economic development money
from the lottery that Lane County had passed through that could help. She agreed with Councilor
Ralston that a lot of questions needed to be answered in this study. It would be nice ifthe study
could be done for $5000.
Councilor Pishioneri said this was a big venture and was needed. He said it was not a profit
making venture, but an investment for the community. It was an expense and investment for the
community. He supported this and felt it would be important for our community, especially in
the long-term.
.
.
..
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1, 2005
Page 15
Councilor Woodrow said a conference center was not a money-making viable source or private
businesses would be building them all the time; however, cities provide services to citizens. With
the private sector stepping up, there was a better chance of not losing money. He said not
building a conference center at all was not an option. The city had an obligation to help the
community have a place for citizens of Springfield to meet. The $25,000 for the last feasibility
study was justified and would come back with the information needed. He said he supported this
and believed they should go forward.
Councilor Ballew asked what the value of .125 FTE equaled.
Mr. Tamulonis said it was about $10,000.
Councilor Ballew noted that adding that $10,000 to the $25,000 cash pledge would make the city
the biggest contributor.
Mr. Tamulonis said sixty percent of his salary was paid through transient room tax and about
sixty percent of his time was focused on increasing tourism and development. It was more a
matter of focusing the effort.
Councilor Fitch said the other entities may not have added their staff time into this request.
Councilor Lundberg asked how the Clarion got built originally.
Mr. Tamulonis said James Mathory built the Roadway Inn in 1965 and it was totally privately
funded.
Councilor Lundberg said she would like the private sector to come forward more and not have to
ask the city for assistance. She said the level of commitment from the city should be smaller.
She would like to see Lane County step up on this issue and she asked if there were plans to
speak with them. She discussed the Fairgrounds issue which the county and City of Eugene were
both involved with.
Mr. Tamulonis said Lane County had been approached about participating in the Springfield
conference center, but they said Springfield was moving too fast. In 1995, Lane County paid for
a study for a larger convention center to meet the need. He discussed some of the process they
went through on that project. He discussed the loss of rooms and meeting space in Springfield.
There were hotels being built, but not a convention center which was very much needed. He
discussed Lane County's participation in a project in Florence. If Springfield came in a year from
now with a proposal, the county might make an investment. He said it may not be viable to build
a convention center in the metro area, but this conference center could be much more viable
because of those involved and the feasibility.
Councilor Pishioneri asked Mr. Tamulonis what the total private investment had been for the
study.
Mr. Tamulonis said $70,000 was committed from the private sector, which could rise to $95,000
with Symantec' s Enterprise Zone contract.
Councilor Pishioneri said as a whole, the private industry was investing more than the city.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 1, 2005
Page 16
.
Councilor Ballew said she could accept the money pledged for the study, but not the staff time
because it looked like the city was taking ownership of the project.
Councilor Woodrow .said the motion would commit staff time through the upcoming feasibility
study and Mr. Tamulonis was working on it already. He discussed the reduction of cost ifthe
conference center was built while the private sector built their hotel. He said he supported this. It
was a great opportunity.
Councilor Ballew said with the building of PeaceHealth, other hotels would be built.
Councilor Fitch called the question.
* THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 2 AGAINST (BALLEW AND
LUNDBERG).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourne<,l at approximately 8:20 p.m.
(
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
.
Attest:
City ~ Atrun.-
.