HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-26 SEDA Meeting Minutes •
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD MONDAY,NOVEMBER 26, 2007
The Springfield Economic Development Agency met in the Jesse Maine Room,225 Fifth Street,
Springfield,Oregon on Monday,November 26,2007 at 7:05 p.m.,with Board Chair John
Woodrow calling the meeting to order.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Board Chair John Woodrow and Board Members Anne Ballew, Faye Stewart, Sid
Leiken, Christine Lundberg,Joe Pishioneri,Dave Ralston,and Hillary Wylie. Also present were
City Manager Gino Grimaldi,Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, SEDA Attorney Joe Leahy,
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis and City Recorder Amy Sowa.
Board member Bill Dwyer was absent(excused).
APPROVAL MINUTES
a. Minutes of November 19,2007.
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER LEIKEN WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 19,2007 SEDA MINUTES.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 8 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 Absent—
Dwyer).
COMMUNICATIONS
a. Business from the Audience
1. Fred Simmons, 312 South 52nd Place, Springfield, OR.Mr. Simmons thanked Budget
Officer Bob Brew for getting the 2006 and 2007 SEDA Financial Reports drafted
following Mr. Simmons' request last week. One of the issues that seemed to come
up with the urban renewal was that SEDA was treating it like a fishing expedition.
He referred to ORS 453,which noted particular projects with a nexus for correcting
the blight in the urban renewal area. He felt they were treating the list as a
placeholder list for some future changes. He felt they needed to be careful and read
ORS 453. If things weren't done correctly, action could be taken that was
contradictory to what SEDA wanted to do.
b. Correspondence
1. Correspondence from Jim Peterson,Glenwood resident and member of the
Glenwood Renewal Advisory Committee(GRAC)regarding Nugget Way and the
Wildish property was introduced into the record.Mr. Tamulonis read from the letter.
c. Business from the Staff.
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
November 26,2007
Page 2
1. Mr. Tamulonis noted that the results from the Urban Renewal Vote during the
November 6 election were in.The City Council had made some adjustments to the
plan and report and adopted it earlier in the evening.
a. Filling Openings on Glenwood Renewal Advisory Committee(GRAC).
Ms. Griesel said there were three openings on the GRAC to be filled. Those
positions had been advertised for about one month. Eligible applications had been
received for two of the positions and staff was in communication with a current
committee member that was planning to submit an application for the third position.
Staff expected to bring the applicants for the three positions to the SEDA Board for
appointment in January 2008.
b. Memo Re: Advertising for Applicants for the Downtown Urban Renewal
Advisory Committee Members.
Ms. Griesel referred to Attachment 1 included in the packet,which outlined thirteen
positions for that committee. The positions were those that staff felt represented the
downtown population in the most detail. Positions with an asterisk next to them were
recommended by the Planning Commission,meeting as the Committee for Citizen
Involvement. Staff was asking the SEDA Board for a recommendation to approve
the positions as is or with changes. Once a final list was approved, staff would go out
for advertisement in December and bring back a list of eligible applicants to SEDA
in January for appointment.
The Board discussed the list and whether or not it was too large and too confining.
Board Member Ballew suggested rotating the membership type every few years.
Board Member Lundberg suggested including someone from the Latino position
within one of the specified positions because they were a significant part of the
business community downtown. She also suggested a representative from the Police
Planning Task Force(PPTF).
Discussion was held regarding designating and overlapping positions.
Board Member Stewart asked how many members were on GRAC and how many
normally attended.
Ms. Griesel said there were 9 members and they usually had 6 or 7 at the meetings.
Discussion continued on the make-up of this committee.
The following positions were recommended:
• Position No. 1 —Downtown Business Owner or Renter
• Position No. 2—Downtown Resident Owner or Renter
• Position No. 3—Chamber Representative
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
November 26,2007
Page 3
• Position No.4—Industrial Business Owner or Renter
• Position No. 5 and 6—Public At-Large
• Position No. 7—Washburne District Representative
• Position No. 8—Historic Commission Representative
• Position No. 9—Community Development Advisory Committee(CDAC)
Representative
• Position No. 10— School District Representative
• Position No. 11 —Willamalane Representative
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER BALLEW WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER STEWART TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEE POSITIONS AS NOTED.
THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 8 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 Absent—Dwyer).
Mr. Tamulonis said staff would advertise for the positions and bring back a list of qualified
applicants in January.
Discussion was held regarding possible names of this committee.
REPORT OF CHAIR
None.
REPORT OF COMMITTEES
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Supplemental Budget Resolution.
Budget Officer Bob Brew presented the staff report on this item. Supplemental budgets may be
used to meet unexpected needs or to spend revenues not anticipated at the time the original
budget was adopted. In accordance with Oregon budget law,notification of this supplemental
budget and hearing is made no later than five calendar days before the public meeting. A public
hearing is only required when a supplemental budget request changes total appropriations within
a fund by 10%or greater; however SEDA practice has been to process all supplemental budget
requests through a public hearing for Board approval and adoption. Notification of this public
hearing was published in the Register-Guard on Wednesday,November 21.
The only two changes to the SEDA budget are an adjustment to beginning cash in the SEDA
Capital Projects Fund and a transfer of that adjustment to the SEDA General Fund.
Adjustments to Beginning Cash reconcile the budgeted cash balance of each fund to the actual
balance. When the actual cash balance of a fund is found to be greater than the estimate found in
the budget,the surplus is usually put into the fund's reserves.
The SEDA Capital Projects Fund was the only SEDA fund for Fiscal Year 2007 and the SEDA
General Fund was added for Fiscal Year 2008. Since the Beginning Cash Balance in the Capital
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
November 26,2007
Page 4
Projects Fund was greater than budgeted due to higher-than-expected tax revenue,the attached
Supplemental Budget Resolution recognizes the adjustment. Rather than putting the new funds
in the Capital Projects Fund Reserve,the additional cash is transferred to the new SEDA General
Fund and placed in the General Fund Reserve. Holding the cash in the General Fund Reserve
provides the Board greater flexibility in future appropriation decisions. The Capital Projects
Fund retains plenty of budgetary authority for anticipated capital projects.
The overall financial impact of the Supplemental Budget Resolution is to increase total
appropriations by$20,136.
Board Member Ralston asked if this was for the Glenwood Urban Renewal District.
Mr. Brew said this was for Glenwood. A separate account would be kept for the Downtown
Urban Renewal District.
Board Member Ballew asked for clarification on the figures. Mr. Brew explained.
Board Chair Woodrow opened the public hearing.
1. Fred Simmons, 312 South 52"d Place, Springfield, OR. Mr. Simmons said SEDA should
approve this item,because if they didn't, it would be excess funds that could result in
reversion to the affected taxing districts. If the funds were to be used for a particular purpose,
it would be good to know that rather than just being in a reserve account.
2. Joan Armstead,417 East 16th Avenue,Eugene, OR Ms.Armstead said she lived in
Glenwood. She asked if this was a Budget Committee issue.
Mr.Brew said by Oregon statutes,the Budget Committee reviews and adopts the budget once a
year. For these small transactions,public hearings were held by the Board for action.
Board Chair Woodrow closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER STEWART WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER PISHIONERI TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2007-04.THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 8 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 Absent—Dwyer).
Board Member Stewart said it would be helpful if Mr. Tamulonis could explain how the two
urban renewal districts would be handled regarding funds and meeting discussions. He asked that
Mr. Tamulonis provide a memo explaining the process.
Mr. Tamulonis said the new Downtown District would be put into place starting January 1,2008,
as long as all the appropriate documentation was filed. The financing for the two districts would
remain separate.There were separate taxing activities that staff would define in lists of projects.
The separate funds had to focus on projects within their separate plans. Staff would note the
separate issues when speaking with the Board. How that was structured would be in part what
SEDA would like to see in each of the areas. The SEDA meeting agendas may be fuller than in
the past due to the number of activities in each district. He referred to a current request in
Glenwood. Staff would be coming back to SEDA with a plan for the next year or two.
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
November 26,2007
Page 5
Board Member Stewart said he just wanted to be sure it was clear to the Board. It could be
confusing.
Board Chair Woodrow said the Budget Committee for the Glenwood Urban Renewal District
included members from the Glenwood Renewal Advisory Committee(GRAC). He asked about
the make-up of the Downtown Budget Committee.
Mr.Tamulonis said he would bring that information to the Board at their next meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. Wildish Construction Co. Request for Assistance from SEDA for Nugget Way.
Mr. Tamulonis said a letter had been received from Randy Hledik of Wildish Construction
Company. He displayed a map showing Nugget Way,the road referred to in the Wildish request.
They were asking for assistance with funds to improve the road. When Franz Bakery located
along that road,there was a discussion regarding the area that had not been annexed. Making
improvements along this road would help the industrial development in that area. One of the
Board's primary interests was to put forth industrial development in Glenwood. This could be a
project that SEDA could consider providing funding for through the urban renewal agency.He
would recommend that staff bring the Board some additional information in January with cost
issues and options for serving that area with sanitary sewer.
Board Member Leiken said he agreed with that recommendation. Lane County was not in a
position to assist with funding for this project. SEDA should be in a position once the costs were
identified.The road should be improved to City standards, especially regarding stormwater
runoff.
Board Member Ballew asked if this would require a citizen vote if the cost was more than
$500,000.
Mr.Tamulonis said it would not because road improvements were already included in the plan.
Board Member Ballew said she would like to have ideas or a policy on how to evaluate and
make determinations on requests that came to the Board. Information such as the benefits, costs,
and who would be the payers would be important. She also asked about any gain the urban
renewal agency would get from proposed projects.
Mr. Tamulonis said any request would need to be financially feasible. He could get that
information back to SEDA.
Board Member Ralston asked if the business south of Nugget Way was annexed into Springfield.
Mr.Tamulonis said it was, as well as several other businesses in that area.
Board Member Ralston asked if the adjacent property owners shared in the cost. He felt they
should.
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
November 26,2007
Page 6
Board Member Pishioneri said the letter was on point and the project would enhance areas for
redevelopment. He agreed that SEDA needed to know what to expect from Wildish and he
looked forward to staff options. He would like a lot of options for both the short and long term.
Board Member Wylie said she was concerned about SEDA funds available for projects and felt
there needed to be a process for prioritization.
Mr.Tamulonis said SEDA had set priorities, and encouraging industrial redevelopment was their
first priority. This project fell into that category. It was up to SEDA to decide if they wanted to
fund this project. He acknowledged that funds were limited.
Board Member Wylie asked how projects came to SEDA.
Mr.Tamulonis said projects came to SEDA from developers,citizens or organizations. SEDA
looked to get development and it was nice to have projects come to SEDA. He noted that he
would be bringing forward information regarding working with developers to the next SEDA
meeting. There will be some information and options related to this subject.
Board Member Ballew discussed enterprise zones. She would like to see a list of resources
already available to the developers.
Mr. Tamulonis further discussed enterprise zones. He noted that as companies came off of the
enterprise zone, large amounts of tax revenue would come in for larger projects.
Board Member Lundberg said SEDA could take on smaller projects, such as the one proposed by
Wildish,now and look at larger projects as larger investments came into the district.
Board Member Ralston said he thought urban renewal agencies could borrow money.
Mr.Tamulonis said that was correct and the overall cash flow for the district over the next
twenty years was projected at$35M-$40M. SEDA had an arrangement with the City to borrow
$1.5M from City reserves for the Glenwood Urban Renewal District. When borrowing funds
from an outside agency,the borrowing entity needed a three year history and two years reserve.
Board Member Ralston noted that if other projects came along, SEDA would have other funding
sources.
Mr. Tamulonis gave an example of projects in Portland's urban renewal district.
Board Member Leiken said Franz Bakery would generate a large amount of tax revenue after the
enterprise zone term expired. He felt the proposed project was a good fit and offered potential for
SEDA.
Board Chair Woodrow asked if Nugget Way was a County road.
Mr.Tamulonis said it was. It had very small curbs and the sanitary lines were put in by Wildish.
It didn't meet current City standards.
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
November 26,2007
Page 7
Board Member Stewart asked if there was local access on this road.
Mr.Tamulonis said there was. It was also a public road.
Board Chair Woodrow asked staff to bring back the additional information on the costs, etc. on
this project.
Board Member Stewart asked about the item related to working with potential developers.
Mr.Tamulonis said he would bring that information to SEDA at their next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:58 pm.
Minutes Recorder—Amy Sowa
Christine Lundberg
Secretary