Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-14 SEDA Meeting Minutes MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD MONDAY,FEBRUARY 14,2005 The Springfield Economic Development Agency met in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room,225 Fifth Street, Springfield,Oregon,on Monday,February 14,2005 at 7:45 p.m.,with Board Chair Tammy Fitch calling the meeting to order. ATTENDANCE Present were Board Chair Tammy Fitch and Board Members Bill Dwyer,Dave Ralston,Anne Ballew, Sid Leiken,Christine Lundberg,Joe Pishioneri,Faye Stewart and John Woodrow. Also present were Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas,Community Development Manager John Tamulonis and City Recorder Amy Sowa. APPROVAL MINUTES a. Minutes of February 7,2005. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER RALSTON TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 7,2005 SEDA MINUTES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 9 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Business from the Audience—None 2. Correspondence—A letter dated February 7,2005 from Mayor Leiken to Senator Kurt Schrader stating the Mayor's opposition to Senate Bill(SB)412 was included in the agenda packet. SB 412 eliminates school district taxes from the division of tax method of funding urban renewal districts. Councilor Lundberg asked if the 4-J District was included in the Glenwood Urban Renewal District and what affect SB412 would have on the amount the District would receive in taxes. Mr.Tamulonis said the affect would be a loss of anywhere from thirty-three to forty percent. Board Member Ralston asked why Springfield couldn't try to get the school district in Glenwood and Gateway back into the Springfield School District. Mr.Tamulonis said he has talked to Springfield Superintendent Nancy Golden. She was interested in beginning some discussions with the 4-J school district about bringing some of those areas into School District 19. Board Member Woodrow said he had talked with Mike Kelly about this issue and also made arrangements to talk with Ms. Golden. Board Member Dwyer said it would be difficult for Eugene to give up those areas since they would lose the revenue from the students they currently serve. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes February 14,2005 Page 2 Discussion was held regarding this proposal and the difficulty in changing boundaries. Board Chair Fitch reminded board members that those decisions would need to be determined by the School Districts and not the city, county or urban renewal district. The URD board could provide information,but the decision remained that of the school boards. 3. Business from the Staff a. Update on Glenwood Advisory Committee Recruitment. Mr.Tamulonis said the closing date was extended to February 28,2005 for all nine positions of the Citizen Advisory Committee. The county has also extended their deadline to February 28, 2005. Several people have shown interest in applying during this extended period, including Mr. Ramseur who spoke before the board last week. Applications have been distributed to businesses in Glenwood and Mr.Tamulonis said he would continue with a personal outreach. b. Possible meeting dates for SEDA Board and Agenda Topics. Mr.Tamulonis referred to a listing of possible meeting dates for SEDA Board meetings which was included in the agenda packet. He checked with Board Member Stewart regarding the March 7 meeting date. Board Member Stewart said that would work out for him. Changes can be made to this schedule as needed. Notice will be given to board members at least a week before additional meetings. Mr.Tamulonis said topics would be added to the calendar as they are determined. Board Member Dwyer asked that Spring Break be noted on the schedule. REPORT OF CHAIR REPORT OF COMMITTEES OLD BUSINESS Mr.Tamulonis said the amended By-Laws and the Citizen Advisory Committee nominations will be upcoming topics for the SEDA Board. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion of Four Potential Strategies. Mr.Tamulonis presented the staff report as included in the agenda packet. With the formation of the Glenwood Urban Renewal District,a substantial number of inquiries have come in regarding what happens next: urban renewal projects,redevelopment strategies,general/specific urban renewal investments, and potential for incentives. Launching 21 years of Glenwood improvements requires guidance from the SEDA Board based on the urban renewal plan, SEDA's Mission Statement and Goals, input from the Advisory Committee,market realities,and the board's preferences. SEDA could discuss and then consider adopting one or more strategies or portions of strategies as the core of not only SEDA's initial 18 months of project investments but for staff effort in Glenwood as well. Once direction is chosen, staff would then formulate detailed work plans,budgets,and more details on projects, for example,to accomplish what SEDA desires in the next 18 months. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes February 14,2005 Page 3 A preliminary set of strategies for discussion by the SEDA Board is in Attachment 1,included in the agenda packet. These are not the only strategies possible but are a reasonable set to initiate discussions by the board and potentially with the Glenwood Renewal Advisory Committee.The strategies outlined consider, for example,the SEDA mission statement and goals,project priorities,critical projects to general and specific development in Glenwood, financial feasibility and cash flow,and development and market realities. Within each strategy are projects and ideas that might make it work. Included in the set of four strategies in Attachment 1 for discussion purposes are Strategy 1: Industrial development and redevelopment Strategy 2: Developer RFI-RFP(Request for Interest/Proposal) for the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and mixed-use development Strategy 3: Residential development and redevelopment Strategy 4: Expanding mixed-use development westward to 1-5 Bridges along Franklin and Willamette River in response to recent interest SEDA might choose to focus budgets and staff efforts over the first 18 months on: A. One of the first three strategies(and not do any others); or B. A few key projects for industrial development(instigating major investments and generating urban renewal revenues)and re-advertising the Glenwood Riverfront Plan RFI/RFP to developers; or C. Do the first three strategies,with planning and partnering as the initial activities before making any major investments in any development projects. The fourth strategy for discussion(expanding mixed-use development westward) is beyond what the Glenwood Refinement Plan now contains and what SEDA can do through the urban renewal plan. It would require studies,plan amendments,and refinement plan amendments initiated by private developers,owners,or the city. Board Member Dwyer asked if there was a conflict between an Enterprise Zone and an Urban Renewal District. Mr.Tamulonis said there is in terms of the revenue is might generate,but once the Enterprise Zone term is completed,the revenue would go to the Urban Renewal District. He gave an example. Mr.Tamulonis explained each of the four options listed above. He described some of the issues that may occur regarding the Riverfront Plan. There may be a need to make adjustments in the Refinement Plan,zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Tamulonis discussed why he would recommend the board consider Strategy One which focuses more on industrial development. Board Member Lundberg asked for an explanation of the map of Glenwood on display during the meeting. Mr.Tamulonis explained the different areas and the zoning of each. Discussion was held regarding the Greenway in this area. He outlined the area that Williams Bakery has chosen as the site for its new facility. Board Member Ballew recalled the advice of the gentleman from Medford who said there needs to be a focus. She agreed that this is what the board needs to be doing. The most money from property taxes that will be made will be from industrial. She would suggest looking at the Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes February 14,2005 Page 4 industrial sites first. The issue of sewers and stormwater in the industrial area would be the best things the agency could address. That would then open a lot of development doors of any type. Board Member Leiken agreed with Board Member Ballew. He said it is good to focus on what we can do and have some successes. He discussed putting in projects here and there that are haphazard and having no positive outcome. He suggested phasing in with projects the agency could move forward with to leverage the resources that come into the district for the more challenging areas. Board Member Ralston asked if the site that Williams Bakery has chosen is currently being serviced by sewer. Mr.Tamulonis said that property is serviced by a private sewer line that Wildish put in on that property,but it is very small. He did note,however,that about ninety percent of the water that is used by bread companies goes into the product rather that the sanitary sewer. About ten percent goes in to the stormwater. Board Members Ralston said industrial developments would be the most logical and if we could get the sewer extended towards I-5 that would encourage more development. He would like to see that as one of the first projects of the district. Board Member Woodrow said he agreed with moving forward with the industrial portion,but wondered how that would impact Franklin Boulevard being resurfaced by the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT). He asked if realignment of Franklin Boulevard should be considered at this time. Mr.Tamulonis said ODOT wanted to resurface Franklin Boulevard this year,but two other large projects were going on that urged them to wait. The resurfacing project may be done in 2006. If further development of the mixed use development was in the horizon,there could be time to look at realignment of Franklin Boulevard. There may be more inquiries regarding commercial development along Franklin Boulevard which could cause some rezoning. Private resources may be available for the realignment of the boulevard if that were to occur. He said one of the things being considered is a jurisdictional change of Franklin Boulevard to the City of Springfield. Board Member Woodrow asked if the city would be allowed to put in curb cuts outside of what ODOT normally does on a highway if the city were to gain jurisdiction of Franklin Boulevard. Mr.Tamulonis said the city would not be able to do that without acquiring additional right-of- way unless the property owners chose to go along with it as part of the development agreement. There may be some issue regarding BM37 if we were to ask for certain requirements. The Urban Renewal District(URD)could buffer some of those changes. The URD needs to set standards and stick to those standards. Board Member Dwyer asked if we had a facility and capacity plan for Glenwood for this development. Mr.Tamulonis said the road capacities are there,but do not meet city standards. Board Member Dwyer said we need to do an analysis of facilities, capacities and costs to know what would be the most cost effective. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes February 14,2005 Page 5 Mr.Tamulonis discussed the expansion of sanitary sewer service which came in for LTD and was extended to Wildish. He referred to the map showing how much the city has put in as far as sewer lines. Board Member Dwyer said we may have to put in a larger pipe for Williams Bakery and other users. Mr.Tamulonis said if another developer came in, it would be up to the developer to determine how to expand that sewer line. He gave one option of extending the sewer line. The stormwater piece is most difficult. He discussed the work done by the TGM grant over the last few years. Part of what the city is considering is the first stormwater management plan in Glenwood which will be assessed. All four strategies included in the agenda packet look at quickly creating the stormwater master plan and acquiring the property and easements to allow those drainage ways to be established. Board Chair Fitch said Strategy number one is the key to see the most affect with industrial property and would be the best place to start. She suggested that the Request for Information (RFI)on the Riverfront Plan should be next in line. With the sewer going in, council may see requests from businesses for annexation. Without the standards,the district may lose the ability to gain what they could to enhance the river site. Certain development along the river would be very beneficial. The URD gives potential developers incentive to build in this area. Board Member Ballew said that in the early years,the URD will have very little money and staff to work with and not everything will be able to get done right away. She said we need to stay on target and focused with the projects. Board Member Lundberg said there has been some interest from developers. She asked if we knew what would be most important to those interested developers that would entice them to this area. She said we can't wait forever or we won't get the quality of development we want. City Planner Susanna Julber said she has not yet contacted the developers that first responded to the RFI to let them know we have an URD,but said she could do that. She said a big part would be helping with infrastructure costs to get it going. Mr.Tamulonis said there are a couple of individuals who are interested in doing some projects such as mixed use in the riverfront. He is looking to see if the URD could put in stormwater and roads to get the framework established. Ms.Julber said parking is also a big issue, so if the URD could assist with a parking structure that would be beneficial. Board Member Woodrow said we would not be using a lot of staff time to notify those who already applied with RFI. Ms.Pappas agreed that we could do that easily. Board Member Leiken said patience is important. The district is a twenty year district and not everything will be done if the first few years. The city received a solid vote by the citizens of Springfield to create this district and a citizen advisory committee(CAC) including residents from Glenwood is being created. He liked the idea of continuing to pursue the RFI. The board will learn how to sit down with developers to tell them what the board wants and what the developer can bring to the table. The city has a good reputation for putting together plans and Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes February 14,2005 Page 6 sticking with them. He referred to other cities' riverfronts that took a lot of time. He said infrastructure will be key to development. Board Member Dwyer said the county would assist with some of the roads in this area. To the extent they can,they will leverage their ability to make it work and maintain a good partnership. Board Member Ralston said Nugget Way is an important place to start to get access to the freeway and would be a low cost for a big benefit. Mr.Tamulonis said the comments back from the RFI were very pointed; stating that we did not have an URD in place and asking for assistance with infrastructure, stormwater,roadways and acquisition of property. Those who responded asked to be notified once something was in place. There has been some interest. If a developer chose to submit a proposal,they could look at what the URD has done or could do to help them overcome some of the obstacles they may face. That would get the URD a long way toward putting the road fund in place without a lot of staff effort on the front end or a lot of cost. The industrial would be fairly easy. Board Chair Fitch asked if Strategy number three and four should be delayed at this time. Consensus was to delay those two items. Board Member Ballew discussed relocation. She said that if any opportunities arise,the district needs to be ready with a plan. That may be something to consider as opportunities arise. Board Chair Fitch recapped that the board agreed Strategy number one subsections(1),(2), (4)(1), (5),(6)as listed in the agenda packet would be the priorities. Board Member Ralston said the cost of number seven needs to be calculated. Mr. Tamulonis discussed the proposed interchanges to this area. Mr. Tamulonis pointed out that at this time he is the only staff working on this district. He suggested looking at Strategy one, subsection(3)(b)regarding additional contracted staffing for the URD. Staff would like to offer the board an option for additional staffing. Board Member Ballew suggested a master plan agreement to have the authority to do that and bring it back quarterly for approval. Mr. Tamulonis said staff does have some ideas of how that could be done. Board Member Leiken suggested that if staff looks for additional staff through Lane Council of Governments(LCOG)they should consider Ashley Deforest. Board Chair Fitch said she also thought the Strategy number two should be considered as far as looking at the RFURFP for stumbling blocks so they would know what plans could help. Board Member Stewart agreed with the other members of the board regarding focusing on the area that is ready for industrial development. It is important, also to know what is important to those with current interest, such as roads and sanitary systems. That infrastructure would open up other areas for development. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes February 14,2005 Page 7 Mr. Tamulonis said he would bring back a work plan for the board to review. He said he would also work with Ms.Julber on interested parties from the RFI. He will bring back ideas for the board to discuss at their February 28 meeting. The next few meetings would include discussion on the budget, formation on the CAC,and previously discussed changes to the by-laws. RESOLUTIONS ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm. Minutes Recorder—Amy Sowa e‘A./74 Christine Lundberg Secretary