Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-22 SEDA Meeting Minutes MINUTES Springfield Economic Development Agency May 22, 2006 - 7:00 P.M. Springfield City Hall — Jessie Maine Meeting Room 225 Fifth Street- Springfield MEMBERS PRESENT: Tammy Fitch, Chair; Anne Ballew, Sid Leiken, Christine Lundberg, Dave Ralston, Faye Stewart, and John Woodrow MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Dwyer, Joe Pishioneri STAFF PRESENT: John Tamulonis, Gino Grimaldi, Cynthia Papas, Bill Grile, Ken Vogeny I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tammy Fitch called the meeting of the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) to order at 7:25 p.m. She called the roll of members, noted the absences of Bill Dwyer and Joe Pishioneri, and stated that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES John Woodrow moved, seconded by Sid Leiken, to accept the minutes of the May 8, 2006, meeting. The motion was adopted unanimously, 7:0. III. COMMUNICATIONS A. Correspondence None. B. Business from Staff None. IV. REPORT OF CHAIR None. V. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES John Tamulonis referred to a document entitled "Notice of Budget Hearing" and reported that the Glenwood Redevelopment Advisory Committee (GRAC) Budget Committee had met. He noted that a summary of its deliberations entitled "Summary by Fund" had been distributed. He said the Committee would next meet on June 12 to finalize its Budget and that the SEDA budget would be forwarded to the City Council for its adoption as a separate component of the City's budget document. VI. OLD BUSINESS None. Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes May 22, 2006 Page 2 VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Draft Request for Interest Regarding Glenwood Riverfront Area Mr. Tamulonis referred to Agenda Item Summary regarding staff request for guidance and comments on an attached draft Request for Interest (RFI) regarding the Glenwood Riverfront Area. He said he would propose an adjustment to the RFI process as part of the discussion. Mr. Woodrow asked if advance interest had been expressed in the proposed development pro- ject. Mr. Tamulonis replied that 15-20 inquiries about the process had been made to the City. He referred to materials to be made available to developers as listed in the Agenda Item Sum- mary. He said the materials would be provided electronically on a compact disk or through internet access. Anne Ballew said she had already submitted a number of minor suggestions for changes to the RFI to Mr. Tamulonis. She said she was concerned that developers be made aware of SEDA openness to all opportunities for development. Mr. Tamulonis replied that the RFI emphasized strong interest in development in the Riverfront Project Area, identified the Riverfront Plan adopted by the City Council, and stated that an alternate plan "conforming to the eleven princi- ples of the Plan" would be considered. Christine Lundberg asked for a description of the 121 residences per acre density included in the RFI. Mr. Tamulonis said such construction would be considered medium density residential and would most likely result in 2-3 story buildings not necessarily 4-5 story buildings, but would include multi-family occupancy. He said the area was designated for nodal development in The Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan). He said the area was identified for residential uses (a residential node not an employment node) and that other Glenwood prop- erty was available for commercial development, perhaps adjacent to the Riverfront Plan area. Sid Leiken said he agreed that flexibility should be maintained in considering development in the area. He said he was impressed that significant interest had been shown in developing the area in advance of the publishing of the RFI. He said he believed the development would "plant a seed" for viable community development in the area. Chairperson Fitch asked what benefit would be gained from extending the scheduled RFI proc- ess. Mr. Tamulonis replied that additional time would enable more complicated proposals to be produced, such as for development of a hospital complex, employment facility, or ho- tel/conference center. Chairperson Fitch said she believed it would be important to encourage development in the area that would add to the Springfield property tax base. Ms. Lundberg said she agreed that the Riverfront Project Area was prime development property and should be maintained on the tax rolls if at all possible and that other desirable property for public and nonprofit uses was available in other areas of Glenwood. Mr. Tamulonis distributed copies of a document entitled "Draft Glenwood Redevelopment RFI/RFP Process." He reviewed proposed adjustments to the process it contained. He said the proposed September 25 selection of a developer was before when the earliest purchase options held by the City in the area were scheduled to expire in late November. He said some addi- tional property options were in the process of being obtained now. Mr. Leiken asked if there was still interest in considering replacement of the Glenwood Solid Waste Management Transfer Station, as prioritized by the GRAC. Faye Stewart reported that Lane County Commissioner Bill Dwyer had asked the Lane County Engineer to draft a letter re- garding the propriety of such a consideration by SEDA. Mr. Tamulonis said SEDA had indi- Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes May 22, 2006 Page 3 cated at its previous meeting that no decision would be made regarding pursuing the suggestion until Lane County's interest in discussing it was determined, since it is a County facility. Dave Ralston asked if there was flexibility in the designation of the Riverfront Project Area as a location for nodal development. Cynthia Pappas replied that TransPlan set nodal development areas by calculation of formulae involving transportation miles driven and to change this area's designation as a node would require another area as a substitute. Mr. Tamulonis added that proposals to change TransPlan were the responsibility of the City Council, not SEDA. Mr. Stewart said he believed the proposed extended time for processing responses to the RFI was appropriate. He said he also believed it would be important to consider all alternate plan proposals received. He said the draft RFI was well done. Ms. Ballew requested that additional text be placed in the RFI introduction to indicate SEDA openness to alternate development proposals. Mr. Tamulonis replied that he would also identify other development opportunities in the Glenwood area and suggested the RFI becomes a Re- quest For Qualifications (RFQ) to eliminate a step and move the process forward with clarity. Mr. Woodrow moved, seconded by Mr. Leiken, to approve the Draft Request for Qualifica- tions for Glenwood Riverfront Area, as amended by the proposed change to the process- ing schedule. The motion was adopted unanimously, 7:0. Chairperson Fitch requested that copies of the final version of the RFQ be provided to members for comment before its official publication. Mr. Tamulonis said he would seek input from a "technical advisory" group before submitting the RFQ to members via e-mail. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT None. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. (Recorded by Daniel Lindstrom) (4, / Christine Lundberg Secretary